geometry or texturing?

[Ian Jones]

It isn't totally necessary to have a high-end renderer with radiosity or GI... because you can achieve amazing results in scanline, but heck I don't know how people manage to do it. In the end though, its far faster and easier to use a feature rich rendering system.

[klingspor]

Well, I'm sure it depends on what you want to display in a realistic way... a scanline renderer will do just fine when going for say... a sphere on a plain? Much more complex stuff can be done too, but you have to know the ins and outs and not expect it to look good the first time you render.
Anyway, look at Jurassic Park, the Abyss, (I believe even Final Fantasy!) and other great movies: Those were definitely done without raytracing and still look realistic, even by todays standards.
But still it depends on what you're trying to do - cars for example are much easier to do with a raytracer, since the lighting is so easy to setup...

Same thing goes for your modeling/texturing question: Please be a little more specific, because you just can't answer questions as general as yours - it's like asking: "What's the best way to make a painting?"... :shrug:


Still, I always wonder: Why does everyone strive for that "realistic" look? I mean if it's gonna be realistic, why not take a photo of the object and show that? Just my opinion though...

[fabriciomicheli]

stefanminning:
well, the point of the question was to get a conclussion about geometry vs. texturing. Maybe I need to explain a little more.
I've seen very complex models (in geometry level), with many polygons to generate a realistic render, or sometimes that complexity seems to be "no needed" because you can work it out with textures.
That's the question: textures or geometry? In which proportion? In what balance?
I think you got a little more complete idea right now.

[klingspor]

Sorry, I still think you have to be a lot more specific, because it totally depends on what your modeling!
For example: You'll probably model the detail on a car, not texture it, because it's easier to work the shaders that way and the details aren't too hard to do anyway. Also, there's not terribly much to animate on a car, so the polycount doesn't matter really. Then on the other hand for a dinosaur, you'll perhaps model only the rough shape and do the rest with textures and displacements, because the little details are hard to model perfectly and would make animating the beast tedious. A human character would probably be somewhere in between the two.

So you see, it all depends on what your doing - there is no "one-fits-all" answer to your question!

Are you doing a car/character/space scene/robot? I don't think anyone will be able to help you if you don't give that info at least :shrug:

[fabriciomicheli]

I understand.
Well, actually, I'm working lastly in architectural stuff (not for professional work, actually, in an artistic way). But I like modeling a great variety of objects.
BTW, what do you think about bitmap resolution for texturing? We say, for example, for a realistic shot of some architectural model (no close-ups).

I'm working now with less-than-1000 px resolution (wide or height) for my maps. Is it right, or I need more resolution?

:beer: cheers!

[klingspor]

Ok, now that's a basis for us to comment on :beer:

Personally, I have no experience in architectual visualization, but I think I'd tend to model most details - at least on wide angle shots, I see no reason to do too much texturing where modeling will suffice. If you're not aiming for close-up shots at all, then some simple textures should be quite sufficient. You probably won't even need a bumpmap.

Then again, I think under 1000x1000 might be just a little too small, unless you are tiling the textures, cause then it should be fine! My textures usually start at 1200px and it only goes upward from there... but I often need close-up shots, so that's a different thing altogether.

Anyway, in general I'd suggest to go with modeling the details in your case...

[fabriciomicheli]

Got it.
Do you think it's a good idea mixing procedural shaders with bitmap mapping?
Do you think that you can get very realistic and natural surfaces using procedurals?

...mapping is a hard matter... you know... :annoyed:

...Hey! Leigh!!! you texture goddess! Give us a hand!!!!! :thumbsup:

[klingspor]

Well.... procedural textures... I for one love them and wouldn't do a project without them. Then again I usually use BMRT, which is RenderMan compliant, so I can write my own shaders! For me, they are a god-send, because it usually takes a lot less time for me to get a little procedural shader going and refine it on the way than to setup UVs and then draw the textures. And sure, they get very realistic if you know what you're doing.

Anyway it doesn't really matter: If you can make it look right, then it usually is right!


I'm not sure what Leighs stance on this is, but I think remembering her saying that procedurals alone shouldn't be used - don't quote me on that though, I may be wrong! :wip:

[fabriciomicheli]

I agree that about procedurals...

what about that compliant you're talking about? ...are you saying that you can write your own shaders?
What soft are U using ? Maya?

I don't know, but Im using max, and there's no way to create own procedurals here... (maybe some third party plugin...)

[klingspor]

Yes, if you use a RenderMan compliant renderer, you can write your own procedural shaders. It's not that simple though, you should be well versed in the C programming language and read some books on the subject.

I don't know if a RenderMan interface exists for max, you might want to have a look here (http://www.renderman.org/)...
Or do you know if max exports .rib files? You could then install a renderer (many of which are free!) and just feed it the .rib without a direct interface to max...

Anyway, if you don't have anything specific you need to do, I see no reason why the procedurals that come with max shouldn't suffice in most cases.

[fabriciomicheli]

Unfortunately there's no compatibility between MAX and renderman. And you're right about that (that MAX shaders are enough), but if you want to get a very good aspect for your textures, you have to combine a lot of procedurals mixing them. I think if you use that kind'a renderer like u use (renderman), it's more simple...isn't it? 'cause you don't have to create a new shader every time. Can you save them and set parameters for change? ...it must be great...

A question for U: I always wanted to move to MAYA, but I'm not decided. I've got a PIII system with 256MB ram. Do you think I can? maybe you can give me some advices... I'll really appreciate it.

:thumbsup:

[klingspor]

Unfortunately there's no compatibility between MAX and renderman. And you're right about that (that MAX shaders are enough), but if you want to get a very good aspect for your textures, you have to combine a lot of procedurals mixing them. I think if you use that kind'a renderer like u use (renderman), it's more simple...isn't it? 'cause you don't have to create a new shader every time. Can you save them and set parameters for change? ...it must be great...
Well even in RenderMan you'll usually have to layer your shaders unless you really write everything yourself, which is, in most cases, not neceessary.
But really it's not that much better or easier (it's even harder I'd say!) than any "normal" renderer out there, the main difference is that you can write your own shaders which can be really hard and frustrating at times. It's only worth the hassle if there's absolutely no other way. See, you even have to program the anti-aliasing functions yourself, and that's one of the simpler things to do...
As an example, I've read that the whole ground area around the anthill in "A bugs life" is a procedural shader - no textures there. The advantage here is that procedurals dont lose quality when you scale them, unlike textures which get pixelated. So it was a good idea to write a shader in this case...

A question for U: I always wanted to move to MAYA, but I'm not decided. I've got a PIII system with 256MB ram. Do you think I can? maybe you can give me some advices... I'll really appreciate it.
My last PC was an AMD 800 with 512 MB RAM and Geforce 256 and Maya was quite slow on that - not totally unuseable, but slow. I suppose the PIII should be ok, but I'd recommend getting more RAM and a modern graphics card, otherwise you won't be having a very pleasant time with the software...

Also: What makes you want to switch? I haven't used MAX for years, but what I remember of it wasn't that bad all in all - especially the plethora of excellent plug-ins was great! So why are you considering Maya?

[fabriciomicheli]

Well, I really like MAX, but I think that MAYA is the top of the high-end 3D package.
There are some problems with max I really hate:

First: There are no volumetrics in max.
Second: The renderer is not so good. If you need a "really good" final image, you need an external renderer as Brazil, for ex.
Third: Paint Effects and Fur, are great in MAYA. Max doesn't have any kind of hair or fur simulation. You have to use shag hair (money!)

But I think that max is a really good package if you add plugins as you say, but it's very expensive...
I think that MAYA is more "STAND-ALONE"

What's your impression about Maya?

[klingspor]

It's obviously what I prefer, mostly since it's what I've been learning in the last few years. It does have a few shortcomings, but there's nothing where I'd say it's completely missing or broken... it all just works well together and that's what I like about it.

As for the renderer: Personally, I've never really had a problem with it, but then again I haven't used it all that much. I hear a lot of bitching and moaning about the integrated renderer, but thank god Maya 5 includes Mental Ray so those people have mosty shut up by now :rolleyes:

By the way, this is going VERY offtopic, maybe you should start a new thread for this...? :hmm:

[fabriciomicheli]

That's right. I'll post it in the general discussion forum...

Thanks a lot for your advices pal...:thumbsup:

[leigh]

To answer the original question of this thread, I'd say that realism is best created using excellent models AND textures AND lighting. Seriously, each of these facets of the process are extremely important and should not be compromised in any way :)

[yinako]

I think I know what fabrizzzio mens by the original thread " Geometry vs textures"

If you are working with stills (model->photoshop), model away you can model bumps, lines, drapery etc, it will eventually save you more time rather than try to texture it, in theory texture are there to add details to a model, so you shouldn't have to texture anything if you model is detail in context, just shade it.

If you are working for animation/games, you need to texture as much as possible where textures can replace geometry deatails. This will be efficent when adding animation the scene eg, dynamics/skining/influnce objects/other interaction that deal with geometry. the less geometry you have the easier time you have later on...ie Skining.

I see alot people does add quite alot details to their model, thats good skills, if you are going to use it for animation purpose try preproduction and plan out the relation between you UVs and geometrys and they contribute to animation/skining/dynamics.

Its no use if you modeled a really detailed armours and chains that sits on top of the body and relise the topology isn't going deform well, textures always deforms well :)

[peekoot]

well... i think it's time for me to join this excellent forum... i was observing most of the time... but this topic really got me interested...

i'm going through similar problems related to "texture vs geometry".. totaly agree with some opinions stated here.. use geometry whenever you can...

and to fabrizzzio:

i use max too... since version 2... did you try using large number of shadow mapped spot lights? i use 40-50 lights around the object... in hemisphere shape... set intensity to some low value like 0.07.... depends on number of lights... exclude for shadow receiving everything except the object you plan to lit (otherwise shadows become little messy) and take few lights to cast shadow on background... concetrate lights on one side so you get nice transition effect...

i guess this technique is just faking GI but i like it more than max's GI... when using bump maps and max's GI the result is something incredibly ugly (or it's just me doing something wrong :rolleyes: )... and this is incredibly fast too... but uses much more ram...

you can also use spot lights with negative intesity value to fake GI shadows on some objects...

but really.. if you want photorealistic result in max... 3rd party plugin (brazil is excellent) is recommended...

also... about fur... i've seen both hair for max... and fur fo maya... hair left much much better impression on me...

displacements.... i use them only when i really really have to... :)

and to stefanminning:

not important... but i think there was raytracing in final fantasy... i noticed few things that couldn't be done otherwise.... :cool:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.