Mud & ZB detailing

#1

It’s been bothering me for a long time that detailing in Zbrush using alphas always seemed alot more crisp than in Mud. I thought i was imagining it so i did a direct comparison and i have to say i’m really disappointed with the results. It turns out ZB is alot more crisp.

   The test uses the exact same mesh divided to 2.7 mill. The alpha/stamp is exactly the same.
   The only thing that isn't exactly the same is the result. ZB is waaaay more detailed as can be seen below.The only thing that isn’t exactly the same is the result. The ZB pic clearly shows great high frequency details and no jaggies whilst the Mud pic is a mess.
   
   Any thoughts?

#2

my thought is : i like the mudbox result more … the zBrush images lookes more blurry to my eyes %-)

#3

Its because mudbox has gpu filtering effect

#4

import both spheres into maya and compare there…
i dont trust the zbrush viewport…

#5

I imported both to max and rendered.There is nothing of consequence.My problem however is with viewport quality as i’m working in Mud.What’s the point in having all that fancy on-target stuff if the viewport display is optimised?

Another example: Mud on top.

#6

I have to agree with Asche regarding your first image.

The Mudbox sculpt is much cleaner and smoother, due mainly to the GPU handling the graphics and not just the CPU. The Zbrush version there has obvious facets and that would annoy me personally; I like to see what I’m working with and Mudbox produces a better viewport comparison to my Maya renders.

As for your second images, Zbrush is viewport smoothing the results, and those gradients you’re seeing don’t seem terribly helpful in sculpting. I prefer the smoother transition in the Mudbox example, but again that’s just my preference.

I would always pick the GPU viewport over a CPU viewport; the results tend to be more accurate and hide less flaws, which I really don’t want to find out about when it’s time for rendering in Maya.

#7

Thanks for the info on CPU Vs GPU viewport display.
However,as i said above the test renders i did were pretty identical in MR but the Mud display in the 1st image is clearly more faceted(CGT scaled the image down so it’s harder to see) and dosn’t display the high frequency detail of the alpha. I think you may be mistaking this high detail for faceting in the ZB image(again,poor image quality)

as for the 2nd image,why is there a grid of tiny squares in the Mud image when no such pattern exists in the alpha?

don’t get me wrong,i’m a 100% Mud user but i just don’t find these viewport discrepancies at all helpful.

#8

I guess we’re not seeing your issue clearly here, perhaps.

Maybe upload your originals to ImageShack and repost them? Then you won’t have bandwidth/resizing issues…

Not trying to say that Zbrush isn’t valid or helpful, but I’ve just never gotten used to its unsmoothed normals. Probably user-error, really, on my part.

#9

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. Let’s put it down to visual preference :smiley:

Even though i’ve pretty much left the quirky workings of ZB behind for the logical world of Mud…i still miss some of that quirkiness(mostly in the form of shedloads of plugins, an excellent homepage , ZBcentral and the inventiveness of the Pixologic crew)

Well,at least we get a new brush every year or an improved old brush. We should count ourselves lucky. :wink:

#10

The first two images look near identicle to me, aside from the fact that your brush strength was higher in Mudbox.

#11

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.