So, can EI do displacements?

[AVTPro]

Hi Igors, forgive my “tone” earlier (had a hard day).

Ok it would seem that in areas with no or little displacement/bump info this banding happens, yes ? this is the only difference i can see between “ZB banding” and “lizard head” projects, lizard head is almost fully covered with a bump/disp.

Maybe this is not such a problem.

The provided maps were the original exported ones, as we know Zbrush uses a 50% gray mid-point, these maps were generated with the ADE displacement exporter.

The positive/negative maps provide a solution for “standard” renderers where by 100% black = no displacement, the positive map contains the outward displacement info, negative = inwards, this has worked very well for me with AUV tiles without any of the “lines” around the transition between the 2 maps (like you seem to get with GUV).

thanks

Yes, Displacement is cool but there’s some drawback with settings that directly generate 8 bit. I still export 16 bit. I haven’t tested it enough tho, so maybe there’s something that works. But I still hold on to the 16 to 8 bit conversions as long as I can during the process.

If this is directly related to the ADE posting in PostForum. I would make a correction or addendum.

[AVTPro]

Hi, ReubenThe calculation of perturbed surface normals (bump/displ) is same anywhere, it’s based on math from times of 17-18 century. The calculation is very simple (in principle) and (to avoid math/geometry specifics) can be formulated as: perturbed normal is a texture’s difference (gradient), not its absolute values. So, just see your textures: are there nice greyscale transitions/gradients? If yes, than a good bump/displ is guaranteed. Note that gradient’s smoothness is much, much more important than gradient’s amplitude/range. A map can be very dark or very bright overview - it’s not a big deal, the importance is only how many half-tones you have. If you see almost no transitions (as in ZB banding), so you’ve no chances to see rational bump/displ in these areas. It’s same like if you increase dramatically an amplitude of dark texture areas in PS: yes, you’ve got more white, but… very rough, no gradient, no data and any amplifying can’t help.

Very good Igors. This is why I got some flat areas when expanding gradiation to a broader gamut. Because though range doesn’t matter gamut does. So I learned better ways to expand the range without losing important parts of the gamut. This is why photoshop is still good in the process, tho’ a bit more time consuming. As an artist I would like to reduce that time. I still haven’t used curves in Zbrush directly yet.

First off, there is an popular contradiction between “artist’s language” and “technical language”. Artists: “I’m not interested in bump maps”, “Don’t worry about surface normals” etc. For artist it’s fully obvious (and self-clear) that if a surface is pushed inside/outside, then we must see it visually (darkness in pits areas for example). But technically “vertices positions” and “surface normals” are handled individually, absolute not automatically (typically 1% of work for “positions” and 99% for “normals”). If surface normals remain unmodified, you can’t see pits/hills but only a strange “ice” (just specify a much less bump than displ to check). Any modification of geometry (displacement, deformation - anything) should be “confirmed” by surface normals modifying, otherwise result = absurd.

Again I agree Igors, bump is very importand to a good displacement and the two are co-dependent in most cases. ADE is good because it can export a full active sets Bump, Disp, and Normal. I aslso think there is another type, called caveat. Depending on the project you may want to be very picky of each map individually and lots of time perfecting each or just need a fast export pipeline. At one point I did think using more maps could smooth the look of surface but I can’t substanciate that. However, tho you could smooth banding with a blur in PS, I would perfer to get the smoothest range then leave blur in EI render. Don’t want to get into all the funky insufficient tricks to fix a stair-stepping map.

So, all these 0%, 50%. 100% (or any %) change nothing in surface normals and result’s “mimics” (very convenient artistic term :)) remains absolute same. You just expand/shrink a model, but nothing more. Of course, it’s affair of artist how many maps should be used. Just it’s more rational/practical to start from a single map, be sure it gives a good gradient, and then (if needed) switch to 2 (or more) maps.

Yes, start with one map with high depth, separete or correct gradient range, then split, then reduce to 8 bit. So making all edit before simplifying. I would rather have a small range then up the levels to a more dynamic range in PS. Then only cut the lower value because “artistically” darkers areas are less distinguishable.

One question, Igors. If I shift the nuetral area and move the 50% nuetral to 0, what happens to darker areas? It goes to negative? And I only have to export two maps with no separation? Interesting thought?

[Reuben5150]

Hi, ReubenThe calculation of perturbed surface normals (bump/displ) is same anywhere, it’s based on math from times of 17-18 century. The calculation is very simple (in principle) and (to avoid math/geometry specifics) can be formulated as: perturbed normal is a texture’s difference (gradient), not its absolute values. So, just see your textures: are there nice greyscale transitions/gradients? If yes, than a good bump/displ is guaranteed. Note that gradient’s smoothness is much, much more important than gradient’s amplitude/range. A map can be very dark or very bright overview - it’s not a big deal, the importance is only how many half-tones you have. If you see almost no transitions (as in ZB banding), so you’ve no chances to see rational bump/displ in these areas. It’s same like if you increase dramatically an amplitude of dark texture areas in PS: yes, you’ve got more white, but… very rough, no gradient, no data and any amplifying can’t help.

Ok, now i understand, thanks, i wasn’t visually inspecting the maps, just expected it to work:D

[Reuben5150]

If this is directly related to the ADE posting in PostForum. I would make a correction or addendum.

No, there is nothing more that can be done with that exporter to improve the results, it has a “smooth” setting which seems to apply some amount of blur, but i could not see any difference in the rendered output.

BTW, i’ve looked at a lot of the displacement tests on zbrushcentral.com and a lot of the other renderers produce similar banding effects when 8bit maps are used, obviously there is only one solution to this :rolleyes:

[Reuben5150]

Yes, Displacement is cool but there’s some drawback with settings that directly generate 8 bit. I still export 16 bit. I haven’t tested it enough tho, so maybe there’s something that works. But I still hold on to the 16 to 8 bit conversions as long as I can during the process.
.

I will try converting 16>8 bits in PS but i can’t see there being any difference.

[Reuben5150]

I will try converting 16>8 bits in PS but i can’t see there being any difference.

Alonzo, you are right !, PS conversion to 8 bits gives much better results !, but sorry i’m not going to re-do the ADE expoter codes, no i think Pixolator shoud be made aware of this, the whole point of the ADE is to improve workflow, i’ll make some comparison shots and post em to ZBC.

[Reuben5150]

Actually PS conversion versus ADE export hmm i can’t say one is better than the other, with ps there is less banding but also less detail and more grain, ok…

Time for time out !

[AVTPro]

Alonzo, you are right !, PS conversion to 8 bits gives much better results !, but sorry i’m not going to re-do the ADE expoter codes, no i think Pixolator shoud be made aware of this, the whole point of the ADE is to improve workflow, i’ll make some comparison shots and post em to ZBC.

Great youre finding what works and what’s not as good. So, just trying to be objective (as I usually am

True or False?

The ADE you posted work well with desired results?
The ADE settings on PF produce banding?
ADE with 16 bit produced desirable results?
Photoshop conversion from 16 to 8 workflow produce desire results?
Did blur in EI help any of your result or with or without AA?

Just something to think about. ADE 8 bit exports may work with some packages, but not EI.

Thanks for sharing your progress Rueben.

[Igors]

Hi, Alonzo

One question, Igors. If I shift the nuetral area and move the 50% nuetral to 0, what happens to darker areas? It goes to negative? And I only have to export two maps with no separation? Interesting thought?

Well, it requires to know well what is a shift, neutral etc. etc. It’s easy to confuse all this. Let us give you a simple formulas that are true for any operations:

displace_height = greyscale(x, y) * disp_factor
normal_perturb = (greyscale(x + dx, y + dy) - greyscale(x, y)) * bump_factor

where:

• x, y - 2D image (pixels) coordinates

• dx, dy - delta step in pixels (defined by texture’s samples, AA, blur). For simplicity you can think dx = dy = 1

• disp_factor, bump_factor - interface values (Texture Window)

Displacement is applied to vertices only, normals’ recalculation - to each rendered point.

[Reuben5150]

Great youre finding what works and what’s not as good. So, just trying to be objective (as I usually am

True or False?

1 The ADE you posted work well with desired results?
2 The ADE settings on PF produce banding?
3 ADE with 16 bit produced desirable results?
4 Photoshop conversion from 16 to 8 workflow produce desire results?
5 Did blur in EI help any of your result or with or without AA?

6 Just something to think about. ADE 8 bit exports may work with some packages, but not EI.

Thanks for sharing your progress Rueben.

1- True (within the limitations of 8bit)
2- In some cases, it is project dependent.
3- a photoshop conversion to 8bit is less accurate IMO, there is less detail but can also reduce the banding effect (if present) in final rendering.
4 read “3”
5 all already stated, blur cannot be use here, actualy its ok using default 1.0 but go past that and the seems will show up.

6 The ADE settings i provided are fine for EI, do i need to prove it ? :wise:

I would stay away from Major/minor though, this seems like a “theory” feature, like “in theory it does this”, in practice not so good.

Reuben

[AVTPro]

Hey Rueben, I haven’t been doing much Zbrushing this week. Trying to clean up my drives. Thanks for getting back.

No, you don't have to prove it to me. I take your word for it. If I didn't "believe" you, I would just test it for myself. LOL. I would never suggest otherwise.

AUV/GUV is really not an issue for me. I don't plan on using it routinely since UVGroups takes  seams/gaps or mis-renders completely out of the equation. Gaps in manual UV editing are non-existent. I'm simply not having it. That's why I have several succussful texture paints. I'm not saying other methods doesn't work. Remember, I'm the one who says " User error, not program error".

 As I have said many times, I go with what I know works. I subscribe to my own UVs. The small amount of time it takes to do UVs, is worth the success to me. I will be doing more UVGroups renders soon enough. 

This study we have been doing, I believe benefits the community, and I will do more but I never planned to use AUV/GUV in my general workflow. Eventhough, I believe AUV/GUV is workable, and does work. Even if AUVs and GUV were 120% reliable, I would still learn to use manual UVs because my goals are towards current studio workflows and not just the newest cool specialty thing. Manual UVs is basic stuff. Nothing special, but works. I'm glad I know it.


Since you are an Zbrush afficianado like me, I recommend you take a look at Scott Mills DVD just for the sake of it or love of it as I did with AUVs and GUV. (to know all I can about each process). You would see how it is nearly impossible to misfire with manual UVs if you know how to blend them and make them seamless. Just a suggestion. 

[http://web.mac.com/avtpro5/iWeb/Site/Blog/E681C9B2-9632-11DA-A009-0030657CE1C0.html](http://web.mac.com/avtpro5/iWeb/Site/Blog/E681C9B2-9632-11DA-A009-0030657CE1C0.html)

Good Luck and keep up the great work.

[AVTPro]

Hi, AlonzoWell, it requires to know well what is a shift, neutral etc. etc. It’s easy to confuse all this. Let us give you a simple formulas that are true for any operations:

displace_height = greyscale(x, y) * disp_factor
normal_perturb = (greyscale(x + dx, y + dy) - greyscale(x, y)) * bump_factor

where:

• x, y - 2D image (pixels) coordinates

• dx, dy - delta step in pixels (defined by texture’s samples, AA, blur). For simplicity you can think dx = dy = 1

• disp_factor, bump_factor - interface values (Texture Window)

Displacement is applied to vertices only, normals’ recalculation - to each rendered point.

Thanks Igors. That was absolutely not help. LOL.

Do you speak Artisanese instead of Programmar?

[MagicEgger]

Hey fellas,

Cineon files, HDRI, store more levels of whites and blacks…
and we can read in EIAS…
to make a good .hdri displacement, you probably need to mix 3 exposures of maps.
what happens if we use converted .hdri grayscale files to .img
Probably we will have a better displacement render, right?

Tomas

[AVTPro]

Wow! Thanks Tomas. You Rock. Going to have to look into that. I may need it, now that I’m begining to warm up to Zbrush.

[AVTPro]

[left]Finally did some edge loops and quad in Maya.

[/left]

[AVTPro]

I’m going to have to redo these movies but that are a start. AUV does work if you use 2x2 sampling as well. It’s iffy those

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/AVTPro/?action=view&current=2-AVT-GUV.flv

[left]http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/AVTPro/?action=view&current=1-AVT-AUV.flv
[/left]

[AVTPro]

New Character

Cupitron.

I used Zbrush to polish it. No mapping yet.

[AVTPro]

I am going to move to the body. Special Thanks to Marissa Ellen Threet for being the cutie cutie baby model. She’s almost 14 years old now. June 18th Happy B-Day Boonie

[MagicEgger]

Hey,

I liked a lot you new model, your daughter, right?

Thankssss

Tomas

[AVTPro]

Hey Tomas! thanks. Yes, my one and only Sunshine!

Except this is suppose to be a boy…but at that age…guess it don’t matter. ahah.

Anyway, shortly I should be ready do to another video tute on ZB in EI. I have sort of lightened up on AUVs.

Also, I want to do an XP script for a multiple blend target in EI. Haven’t touched XP in a very long time. I should be starting soon. First I have to finish modeling the head in Maya, then I figure I should to the morph test from EIM. It’s still good at morphs, but I don’t model in it anymore.

This is just WIP, I’m not fighting wmps. I don’t have the time.