So, can EI do displacements?

[Igors]

Hi, Alonzo

http://homepage.mac.com/avtpro5/.Public/Project%20Pixol%20Perfect.prj.sit

Thanks, but this model/map is a lucky case, it rendered quite well in EI a year ago. We asked about the cube you posted, its moire tell us about very low texture’s sampling/blur - otherwise seams are here. No problems if you cannot post a project, we don’t want to insist

The pixolator head, Uses GUVs. There’s no seams.
I recomment UV Groups, and possible GUVs.
AUV I was never interested in because you can’t edit your maps in Photoshop.

It would be nice if you explain a difference between AUV and GUV (a little images would be wanted). We are not familiar with these terms and still think AUV = Alonzo’s UV’s

However, ZB which I believe to be the cause of seams has setting to resolve it. It’s called Fix Seams under Texture. You can also see the seams in ZBrush when you click “Check UVs”

Hmm… interesting. And how this fixing works?

ZBrush documentiation says the problem exist in how apps handle UV space. It sometimes makes slit that won’t texture.

We’ve no idea what is a choice here and how a renderer should handle UV “in other way”. The subject of render is a polygon. For each rendered point the final texture value (a pixel of image) is calculated with interpolation of texture values in polygon’s vertices. These values are calculated based on map’s settings (scale, rotate, map type etc.) and vertex position. This position is either original vertex position (in model space) or its UV coordinate if uv mapping is on. So, UV’s are just “virtual” vertices positions are used for texturing. Thus we don’t understand talks about “this” and “that” UV’s

[AVTPro]

Hi, Reuben

     For normalized UV simply set scales like 1.0/map_size_x and 1.0/map_size_y
      
     Maybe (it's our assumption only) importers have problems with different UV saving in EI and other programs. UV's are always x,y,z triple, but in EI they are stored per each vertex (often importer needs to create more vertices for UV seams). In other programs they are stored as a "map data" for each polygon, for example a triangle facet refers to 3 UV's. Again, it's just an assumption.
      
     Generally the situation with UV's is a bit funny:)  We hear declarations (mainly from Alonzo) that "all is OK", but same time "EI cannot.. etc." We asked for prj to see - no way. So, what we should think?

    Didn't say everything was Ok. I said I didn't have a problem with the renders I posted. 
    If I did have a problem I stated that as well. I spent all nite the other nite debating with another user the pros and cons of each UV mapping set-ups, (AUV, GUV, UVGroups). They are all different and offer benefits and drawbacks. 
    
    I only recommend UVGroups. that's the one I subscribed to and plan to use. However, I did a couple test renders in the other methods and initiately didnt have any problems, specifically the Pixolator head.
   
   GUV: because of the seamless grouping of UV is less prone to have problems. Logically, in practice, if seams are causing problem for many artist, the obvious solution to me is to reduce seams. UVGroups or Unwrapping in a UV editor allows for seamless UV blending. Traditional UV editing affords control of the texture texture surface in several ways AUVs can not. 
    
     GUVs and UVGroups are not the same. AUVs and GUVs are not the same. GUVs are a cross or middle ground between UVGroups and AUVs. They do hold some UVs together.
    The Pixolator held is GUVs. For some reason it works. That reason I  strongly believe to be proper settings under the texture menu by a highly talented Zbrush artist. Test it yourself, if it was an EI problem, then it wouldn't render. 
    
    AUV: I never agreed with this approach. It's no "be all" premiere workflow. The maps or UVs can't be manipulated visually.  It's a completely mechancal process onto itself and the computer outside of Zbrush.  The only mechanisms for editing of AUVs in ZBrush and it's limited (under texture menu). It's good if you are only in Zbrush but can cause many problems outside Zbrush. Even with Zapplink in Photoshop, it's inherently flawed because it's reverting to projection mapping agian..and that means smears. Editing Unwraps won't smear.
    
    AUVs only allow for editing and painting in Zbrush where as Unwrapping UV offer both Zbrush, Photoshop tools such as Paths and filters, as well as ZappLink. 
 
 To say, Maya or Max can do AUVs but EI can't? Let's see...what else can Maya do that EI can't?
    
    My conclusion is that AUV is a less precise  and flexible workflow. Traditionals UV editing is a  better workflow.  However Zbrush is an excellent interface for 2.5 painting. 
    
    Again another misconception ZBrush is not a true 3D app with full 3D viewports. It's 2.5 D with only one 3D object viewport. 
    
    Sorry, not blaming you guys but I want to be clear about what I said and did not say.

[AVTPro]

[left]Igors:

They say it’s the handling for UV space between apps. I don’t quite agree, because it implies that Zsphere models can’t have seams. Seam can appear in Zbrush on internally generated models.

So my questions why does Zbrush separate the UVs? Does the render mend the UV back together? or is embedded in the polygon? You can move a UV anywhere and it will paint the  poly the same. So why aren't the UV's fixing themselves back on the polyface correctly? Is ZBrush separating the polygon faces as well as the UVs? How do you close the gaps, besides the controls listed below. How does Maya and SoftImage place the UVs. Is there a coordinate missing in the UV or EI map data?

[img]http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/AVTPro/SlitsandSeams.jpg[/img]

Does Pixologic make it’s UV specifications available for other renders? Where is it?

[/left]

[AVTPro]

Hi, Alonzo
Thanks, but this model/map is a lucky case, it rendered quite well in EI a year ago. We asked about the cube you posted, its moire tell us about very low texture’s sampling/blur - otherwise seams are here. No problems if you cannot post a project, we don’t want to insist

It would be nice if you explain a difference between AUV and GUV (a little images would be wanted). We are not familiar with these terms and still think AUV = Alonzo’s UV’s

Hmm… interesting. And how this fixing works?

We’ve no idea what is a choice here and how a renderer should handle UV “in other way”. The subject of render is a polygon. For each rendered point the final texture value (a pixel of image) is calculated with interpolation of texture values in polygon’s vertices. These values are calculated based on map’s settings (scale, rotate, map type etc.) and vertex position. This position is either original vertex position (in model space) or its UV coordinate if uv mapping is on. So, UV’s are just “virtual” vertices positions are used for texturing. Thus we don’t understand talks about “this” and “that” UV’s

Sure, Igors glad to provide any information that will help. I will show pics and samples, or projects.

Yes, that’s right blurring was off. So I will redo, Ruebens cube. It work first time but I didn’t save project, then it didn’t work again as good.

[Igors]

Hi, Alonzo

[left]They say it’s the handling for UV space between apps. I don’t quite agree, because it implies that Zsphere models can’t have seams. Seam can appear in Zbrush on internally generated models.

So my questions why does Zbrush separate the UVs? Does the render mend the UV back together? or is embedded in the polygon? You can move a UV anywhere and it will paint the poly the same. So why aren’t the UV’s fixing themselves back on the polyface correctly? Is ZBrush separating the polygon faces as well as the UVs? How do you close the gaps, besides the controls listed below. How does Maya and SoftImage place the UVs. Is there a coordinate missing in the UV or EI map data?
Does Pixologic make it’s UV specifications available for other renders? Where is it?

We wrote:

UV’s are just “virtual” vertices positions are used for texturing

We are sure it’s fully true, and, AFAIK, any renderer processes UV’s in same way. But any renderer does not calculate UV’s, it always uses UV’s are stored in model (storage can be in different formats as discussed before). Thus a fact of “UV’s presence” doesn’t promise nice results yet, all depends from how lucky they are prepared by app/tool is responsible for their creation (and, of course, they should correspond to map image). Up to now we don’t understand what do you want from EI renderer cause it processes UV’s normally, as any universal renderer should do this.

We understand that AUV, GUV etc. are different techniques of UV’s creation. But we are not familiar with details. A simple screenshots/images (one per each approach) would be nice to see
[/left]

[yhloon]

an image show how different the transporter fact and fbx…after encage sub-D, it won’t happen all the time, but it is quite annoying

Loon

[Reuben5150]

Sure, Igors glad to provide any information that will help. I will show pics and samples, or projects.

Yes, that’s right blurring was off. So I will redo, Ruebens cube. It work first time but I didn’t save project, then it didn’t work again as good.

Alonzo, i would forget about the cube project, it will only complicate your test results because EI cannot auto-align textures to that model.

We have seen a good working example (the primitive-man-turtle-head:) this is nothing new though, now i think we need a new project, something simple like the cube using GUV tiles since this was how turtle-head was mapped, and then converted with obj2fac2.

As pointed out by Malcolm recently, we’ve all had some degree of success with EI+ZB, but the problem is inconsistent results, or like “sometimes it works sometimes it don’t”.

You need to try and reproduce what does work.

I might be able to help out a bit, but until there is means of an accurate model conversion on PC its poinless me providing projects IMO.

Reuben

[Reuben5150]

an image show how different the transporter fact and fbx…after encage sub-D, it won’t happen all the time, but it is quite annoying

Loon

I agree there is a problem with transporter but i wasn’t aware of this, it really needs sorting out cause at this point in time PC users are stuffed :banghead:

Have you asked Blair about this ?, i seem to remember asking about the texture polygon triangulation problem, no reply…

Reuben

[Reuben5150]

Hi, Alonzo

We understand that AUV, GUV etc. are different techniques of UV’s creation. But we are not familiar with details. A simple screenshots/images (one per each approach) would be nice to see
[/left]

About AUV tiles, taken from zbrushcentral.com -

Hi
The UVTiles texture mapping method (which was first introduced in v1.5) has several benefits over other traditional mapping methods. The main strength of the UVTiles method is the capability to automatically map a 2D texture to an arbitrarily-shaped 3D mesh without requiring the artist to spend valuable time in manually assigning (or editing) UV coordinates. The UVTiles method divides the texture to equally-sized tiles which are individually assigned to each of the polygons.

The next ZBrush version (v2) will add another UVTiles-mapping mode which retains the benefits of UVTiles with added capability for variable level of texture-details. This mapping method, AUVTiles (Adaptive UVTiles), assigns texture-tiles that are proportional in size to their target polygons.The following image is an example of AUVTiles-vs-UUVTiles (both 3D objects have been rendered with identical texture-size). A slice of the AUVTiles texture map is shown on the left and contains adaptive-size tiles while the UUVTiles slice on the right consists of unified size tiles.

More information about AUVTiles will be available when it is finalized,meanwhile, if you are interested in testing the compatibility of the current state of AUVTiles mapping with your other 3D applications, you may download the following files…

Click here to download the OBJ (geometry and UV cords) file.

Click here to download the texture map.

Notes:

1. The included mesh and texture are rendered properly in ZBrush even while in preview mode. In some of the other 3D applications (which may be utilizing OpenGL or hardware rendering), the preview mode may not properly map the included texture. In these cases you will need to use higher quality rendering mode (similar to BestRender mode in ZBrush) for best results .

2. 3D/2D coordinates systems are not consistent across all 3D applications and you may need to adjust the mesh or texture for proper rendering (adjustments may include… Flipping one or more of the mesh axis, flipping the normals, and/or flipping the texture horizontally or vertically.

3. The UVTiles has been updated to offer better compatibility with the tested applications but some applications may require a different filter to be used for optimum result. if the above mesh is not rendered properly in your other 3D applications please email your test results to [b]matthew@pixologic.com[/b] .

4. Texture antialiasing: Texture artifacts may be caused by the antialiasing mode (such as MipMapping) that is seleceted in the tested application . If you detect such artifacts, try a different antialiasing (sampling) mode (or reduce the antialiasing radius).

If you have successfully tested this mesh+texture in your other 3D application/s and have gotten results similar to the ZBrush-rendered images (above), please post your result and the required steps for proper rendering of the mesh, this information will become valuable to other members who are using these applications. (furthermore, these steps can later be ZScripted to allow for a customized one-click export-button that will execute these steps before exporting the mesh from ZBrush. )

If you have tried the above mesh but did not get the expected results, please email your your test results (with any other relevant information) to [b]matthew@pixologic.com[/b]

Thanks,
-Pixolator

This test works with ElectricImage -
EIAS example
I have found that ZB AUVs works just fine inside EIAS.
This is the process I used:

• Downloaded the original obj and bmp files (PixZsphee50.OBJ and PixZsphee50.BMO).
• Opened the obj file in UVmapper, default settings, and exported the model from there (result: PixZsphee50_uvm.obj).
• Used O2F to get the new obj transported as a fact (PixZsphee50_uvm.fac)
  - Imported the fact file to a new EIAS proyect, I did activate “use UV space” for the model and then added the bmp file at the difusse channel, also with default settings.
• Before rendering, I upped the sampling level for the model (nfo window, shading tab), to 2. Then I did the same in the render panel, antialias tab: default settings, but put the sampling level to 2.
• Hit Render and done.
  

Gustavo Muñoz

Some of the settings Gus used are not needed, as mentioned above, turning off texture AA is a good idea.

Reuben

[Igors]

Hi, Reuben

About AUV tiles, taken from zbrushcentral.com

Ahhaa, thanks for info, we know how it works, but didn’t know a name - we never were too erudited

Ok, step by step

1. Don’t overestimate a role of auto-alignment. Yes, it’s unpleasant if a “bounded polygon” is missed/killed, but UV’s are still correct, so all you need is:

• turn “normalize” off in Group Window
• use Calculator (win) to perform 1-2 dividing and copy/paste results into Texture Window

Not too much, sure

2. Just note that ZB posts UVs + map together, i.e. concrete UVs make sense only with concrete map and vice versa (unfortunately, we didn’t catch this brilliant idea when we worked with uv mapping long time ago :sad: )

3. Don’t rely too much on powerful of “adaptive” UV, there is no principal difference between adaptive and uniformed: adaptive makes less seams, but… only if a concrete model allows (as always adaptive eats much more programmer’s time)

4. We are familiar with the sampe you post. Sorry, Reuben, but IMO it’s absolute not suitable to be a subject of testing/learning just cause diffuse texture is much more tolerant to seams compare to bump/displ texture. Math says that deivative (bump) is always much less stable than a function itself (diffuse). And math rules are always confirmed (no matter we like or nope,). This texture should be “well-seamed” for bump.

but put the sampling level to 2

turning off texture AA is a good idea

Of course, artist can use any ways to achive results he needs. But what we talk about: a normal/regular render or about render “as it’s good for ZB”? These things are much different.

We’ve no questions for Matusha from ZB cause we see he understands perfectly what we understand

[Reuben5150]

Hi, Reuben
Ahhaa, thanks for info, we know how it works, but didn’t know a name - we never were too erudited

Ok, step by step

1. Don’t overestimate a role of auto-alignment. Yes, it’s unpleasant if a “bounded polygon” is missed/killed, but UV’s are still correct, so all you need is:

- turn “normalize” off in Group Window
- use Calculator (win) to perform 1-2 dividing and copy/paste results into Texture Window

Not too much, sure

But its not just the texture scale that’s lost its also positioning, thats 2x more potential for “user error”, i need to rule out any possibility of mis-alignment when doing these “tests”, but ok, maybe i’ll give it another go.

4. We are familiar with the sampe you post. Sorry, Reuben, but IMO it’s absolute not suitable to be a subject of testing/learning just cause diffuse texture is much more tolerant to seams compare to bump/displ texture. Math says that deivative (bump) is always much less stable than a function itself (diffuse). And math rules are always confirmed (no matter we like or nope,). This texture should be “well-seamed” for bump.

yes i know , i just cut/paste everything on the page.

5. Of course, artist can use any ways to achive results he needs. But what we talk about: a normal/regular render or about render “as it’s good for ZB”? These things are much different.

That is becoming more and more clear, ok thanks Igors.

Reuben

[Reuben5150]

Well i seem to be having some success without even using windows calculator

Mapped with AUV tiles and its a diffuse map only, we’ll see how it goes, but one thing i will say… i’ve tried many times to map a texture to this model and failed, -“dazed and confused” yet again :argh:

Reuben

[AVTPro]

I’m glad you guys are giving this your attention. Seem to have some really nice things happening. Looks good Rueben . I like your image. I still don’t subscrible to AUV but I do hope you find a solutions. If you can shed some light on your settings please do. Thanks.

Let keep hammering til we breakthrough. GUVs. No seams.

The project file
http://homepage.mac.com/avtpro5/.Public/AVT_ZB-EI-GUV.sit

How it was done.
Personal study on AUV vs. GUV
and How I rendered this with no seams.
These video recording with a lecture
90 mb
http://homepage.mac.com/avtpro5/.Public/AVT%20AUV_GUV.sit

Please veiw this in the spirit it was given.
Hope it helps.

To God be the Glory Enjoy!

[AVTPro]

UNIFIED TILES…I remember when you did this Rueben. I had NO CLUE what that stuff was back then. I believe that would be another if not PERFECT solution. I haven’t tried it yet tho.

I need some rest first.

[AVTPro]

Alonzo, i would forget about the cube project, it will only complicate your test results because EI cannot auto-align textures to that model.

We have seen a good working example (the primitive-man-turtle-head:) this is nothing new though, now i think we need a new project, something simple like the cube using GUV tiles since this was how turtle-head was mapped, and then converted with obj2fac2.

As pointed out by Malcolm recently, we’ve all had some degree of success with EI+ZB, but the problem is inconsistent results, or like “sometimes it works sometimes it don’t”.

You need to try and reproduce what does work.

I might be able to help out a bit, but until there is means of an accurate model conversion on PC its poinless me providing projects IMO.

Reuben

Yes, I agree. It’s going to be very difficult for you to continue if placement is a pelimenary problem. However I do finish your cube or my rendition of your cube. I truly admire your tenacity and your willingness to share. Malc has been a help also, and we have gone back and forth on many points. I agree with you both if it doesn’t work consistently it’s not a full solution. It’s best to go with what works.

BTW, I will look into the UNIFIED UV…which is that? UVTiles. I tell you I really looked the worked you posted when I say this a year or so ago.

[Reuben5150]

Yes, I agree. It’s going to be very difficult for you to continue if placement is a pelimenary problem.

BTW, I will look into the UNIFIED UV…which is that? UVTiles. I tell you I really looked the worked you posted when I say this a year or so ago.

Yes placement is/was a problem, that is why i posted the image above.

I think i was talking about “UV tiles”, i always had problems using it though, ZB hangs when generating a displacement map.

Ok, got some jobs to do, will post back if i have anything “interesting”

[Igors]

Well i seem to be having some success without even using windows calculator

Mapped with AUV tiles and its a diffuse map only, we’ll see how it goes, but one thing i will say… i’ve tried many times to map a texture to this model and failed, -“dazed and confused” yet again :argh:
Reuben

Well, let’s hope for “Your Time is Gonna Come”

[Reuben5150]

Because "I Can’t Quit You Baby" so here’s my progress

First, the black areas on the forehead are my fault, not enough geometry in that area

So what we have is a ZB model mapped with AUV tiles, i’m using a positive AND negative !!! displacement map and there’s no “dead areas” or other oddity’s, i’ve shocked myself.

Ok so there’s not as much detail as i see in ZB, thats to be expected to some degree, but i’m working on improving this.

Alonzo, i suggest using the alpha proccessing tools in Zbrush, it has its own positive and negative curves which you can load, they are in the Zcurves folder.

Oh and btw, i only used the sculpting tools on this model, no “projection master” yet.

Reuben

[Reuben5150]

The project file
http://homepage.mac.com/avtpro5/.Public/AVT_ZB-EI-GUV.sit

How it was done.
Personal study on AUV vs. GUV
and How I rendered this with no seams.
These video recording with a lecture
90 mb
http://homepage.mac.com/avtpro5/.Public/AVT%20AUV_GUV.sit

Please veiw this in the spirit it was given.
Hope it helps.

To God be the Glory Enjoy!

I can’t watch the movie, says “error this is not a movie file” :hmm:

R

[AVTPro]

I can’t watch the movie, says “error this is not a movie file” :hmm:

R

Did the stuffit file decompress? It’s two Sorenson 3 video codecs and a read me. Maybe it’s one of the PC things

I can compress it for you cinepak? I really want you to see it. I successful used one of the automapping features GUV in ZBrush with EIAS…