itsjustme Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I'm not sure if anyone else has experienced this, but it seems as though SSS negates smoothing using "averaged normals" or Porcelain (same thing done as a material). Also, "average normals" and Porcelain appear to give slightly different results even though they should be the same. Anyone know how to get around this? Here are some examples (the names of the files denote the settings): Quote
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted November 20, 2014 Hash Fellow Posted November 20, 2014 If I were investigating it deeply I'd run the tests in some previous version just to eliminate the possibility that something has gotten out of whack since the features were introduced. Also... when you did "Average Normals," did you set Normal Weight to some value? i seem to recall 50% was the smoothest. Quote
itsjustme Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 If I were investigating it deeply I'd run the tests in some previous version just to eliminate the possibility that something has gotten out of whack since the features were introduced. Also... when you did "Average Normals," did you set Normal Weight to some value? i seem to recall 50% was the smoothest. I'll try it in a few other versions...haven't done that yet. I set the "Average Normals" to the same setting as was in the Porcelain material with Jeff's character..."100". Quote
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted November 20, 2014 Hash Fellow Posted November 20, 2014 Are you referring to the "Average Normals " that is a Surface property? Are we sure that is really the same as Porcelain? In any event, i recall that 50% got me the smoothest result. 0% and 100% are opposites of each other , but least smooth. Quote
itsjustme Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 Are you referring to the "Average Normals " that is a Surface property? Are we sure that is really the same as Porcelain? In any event, i recall that 50% got me the smoothest result. 0% and 100% are opposites of each other , but least smooth. Yes, "Average Normals" is a surface property. When I look at Porcelain in v18, it has the same settings in its' surface properties, so I assume they are the same...although it used to be a different "Attribute" type called "Geometry" (I'm not sure when that went away). In v17g+, Porcelain and "Average Normals" gave the same results...in v18g, they were slightly different. I tried a 50% setting on the "Average Normals" and it didn't fix the problem. With "Average Normals" set to 100, the character is smooth until I apply the "skin2" SSS settings (.95, .6, .5), then it is no longer smooth (I tried v18g, v17g+ and v16b). When Jeff Bolle made his model, he used a higher SSS setting (6, 4, 2). The higher setting gives a more waxy appearance (which is fine for an the Alien character) and makes it appear smoother. The "skin1" (1.3, .85, .56) and "skin2" (.95, .6, .5) settings are supposed to be closer to human skin. I used Jeff's model so that there would be a common model that anyone could test on...it's located here (I deleted the maps for my tests to better see the changes between different settings): http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46636&p=399715 Quote
Fuchur Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 For me 50% is not the smoothest but is a good compromise between details and smoothness. Anyway I often use 100%. It may be, that those two features do not play well together... See you *Fuchur* Quote
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted November 20, 2014 Hash Fellow Posted November 20, 2014 Here's the test that made me think 50% worked well... but it was just one test. http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44540&p=382581 (post 3) Quote
itsjustme Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 It may be, that those two features do not play well together... That may be the case...I'll try a few more things. If nothing clears it up, I'll see about faking SSS. Quote
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted November 20, 2014 Hash Fellow Posted November 20, 2014 Somewhere out there there's a long YouTube tut on an approach to fake SSS I've been meaning to read watch to see if it can be applied to A:M but I've not gotten around to it. Quote
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted November 20, 2014 Hash Fellow Posted November 20, 2014 I think this was the one. I haven't watched but a few minutes. I got the sense that some sort of compositing was being used which might be translatable to A:M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOcHxcCPoyI Quote
John Bigboote Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I did not know that you could 'trick' A:M into showing the 'average normals' feature as far back as V17!!! I have been using SSS and Ave Norms100% and it has been working as I expected it might. Haven't noticed any detriments. Quote
itsjustme Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 I did not know that you could 'trick' A:M into showing the 'average normals' feature as far back as V17!!! I have been using SSS and Ave Norms100% and it has been working as I expected it might. Haven't noticed any detriments. What settings are you using on SSS, Matt? On higher settings, there is some smoothing inherent in SSS. "skin1" and "skin2" are supposed to simulate human skin. Most of the settings I've seen being used are much higher. Quote
John Bigboote Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Not saying it's the best results... I like to push my settings, until I get in trouble. I will also 'help-out' any SSS by placing a 200% brightness bulb behind the character with a light list only to the character(no specularity or shadows needed.) These settings are just where I was last in the program... I am constantly dinking with these in search of 'holy grail' results. This image utilizes SSS as shown, normal smoothing @100%, and the new fast AO in V18. Quote
itsjustme Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Those are very high "Half extinction distances", which is providing it's own smoothing. "skin1" is (1.3, .85, .56) and "skin2" is (.95, .6, .5) in this post from Yves: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25867&p=212206 If you were to set the "Half extinction distances" to either "skin1" or "skin2", my guess is that you would find that the "Averaged normals" isn't providing any smoothing with SSS turned on (the smoothing works fine without SSS)...at least that has been my experience over the past couple of weeks. Quote
itsjustme Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 This problem is listed as being fixed in v18.0j when it is released. Thanks, Steffen! Quote
itsjustme Posted May 21, 2015 Author Posted May 21, 2015 I finally got around to rendering a test that I can post showing that smoothing and SSS now work together (it's been fixed for a while). This render is from v18L using "skin2" settings for SSS (0.95, 0.6, 0.5), relative density at "150%" and "Normal weight" set to "85%" The only textures applied are for the iris' and hair maps. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.