Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 59

Thread: Compare Grass Sasquatch versus FiberFX

  1. #16
    Unemployed Jester sandman300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    1,005
    I've found that some combinations of settings in FFX make it take a lot longer to render than it normally would. This may be just a bug but I haven't been able to do anything that is reproduceable.

    Also how are you making the fibers, looks like your just using the pixle filter. For what your asking for, I think you'd have more luck using the modeler side of FFX to make the grass and then send them over to layout.

    Another way would be to use guides from modeler to control the FFX settings. The pixle filter seems to work better this way.
    For Is and Is-not though with Rule and Line
    And UP-AND-DOWN by Logic I define,
    Of all that one should care to fathom, I
    was never deep in anything but--Wine.

  2. #17
    Super Member SplineGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hastings, New Zealand
    Posts
    7,731
    One of the most frustrating things about FFX is that its problems seem to be like a dog chasing its own tail. Something gets fixed only to be replaced by a new problem. Then that gets fixed and then theres yet another problem. That gets fixed but then the same problems start popping back up again. This has been going on for way too long.

  3. #18
    Profesor Pixel Poo Mr Rid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
    For my Sas grass, I have used no spotlights - only distant lights - and everything works fine.
    Except Sas shadows wont work with a distant light. Your grass appears unnaturally bright without at least self shadows.

    You can always light your Sas objects with Sas disabled while using any kind of lights and GI you want, and bake out a color UV image or sequence using the Surface Baking Camera, then apply the render in the color channel of Sas so any soft area or GI lighting will be baked right into the Sas, while saving on costly Sas shadow render time.
    Last edited by Mr Rid; 10-19-2009 at 07:20 PM.
    "O K, so what's the speed of dark?"

    Demo reel 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOixvRhcs4

  4. #19
    Profesor Pixel Poo Mr Rid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,799
    Thats good if it works for your client's purpose. I'd be curious to see the photo of real grass you are comparing. Is it a bright exposure? If I Google grass images, they all have more contrast and shadow than the example. If I were doing photoreal grass at this resolution I wouldnt render anything without shadows.

    Other grass techniques I would use before messing with FFX-
    http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101604

    http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthr...metric+texture
    "O K, so what's the speed of dark?"

    Demo reel 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOixvRhcs4

  5. #20
    Profesor Pixel Poo Mr Rid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
    ... - no reason to alter a winning formula.
    Right, my suggestions are not just to you but to anyone reading here who may ponder approaches to grass. Sas with no shadows is not ideal for every grass render.
    Last edited by Mr Rid; 10-20-2009 at 03:47 PM.
    "O K, so what's the speed of dark?"

    Demo reel 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOixvRhcs4

  6. #21
    \\ is sparkling // Iain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    4,441
    I don't think Saslite (or Sasquatch for that matter) is any good for realistic grass.
    I wasted hours experimenting with it and then when I got something useable found I couldn't get it to match the rest of the render.
    portfolio

    The Liver is evil and must be punished!

  7. #22
    Super Member simpfendoerfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    413
    You were more successful with FiberFX? What did you use in the end?
    www.coherentimages.com

    Mac 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel
    4GB RAM
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
    OS X 10.6.4

    Power Book
    Intel Core i7 2.66 GHz
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
    OS X 10.6.4

  8. #23
    Super Member SplineGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hastings, New Zealand
    Posts
    7,731
    Well it must have been photoreal because you got a paycheck for it.

  9. #24
    Super Member simpfendoerfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    413
    Would it be possible to elevate the argument a bit? We know it can be done with front projection of an image, even a photo texture if you wish.

    It would be cool to be able to do it in one environment in 3D. That's why digital 3D is fascinating.
    www.coherentimages.com

    Mac 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel
    4GB RAM
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
    OS X 10.6.4

    Power Book
    Intel Core i7 2.66 GHz
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
    OS X 10.6.4

  10. #25
    Profesor Pixel Poo Mr Rid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
    Which is pretty much the bottom line! As long as your clients are happy and you get paid...
    Well, not entirely. Your work represents you beyond the current paycheck. One client's satisfaction does not mean that other potential clients are satisfied with what they see in a demo. Personally, I have my own expectation for my work that has nothing to do with the client's, because I want the work to represent me for future jobs. I hope my contribution will represent the company I work for to help win future bids, but also hope it will rep LW to the CG community at large.

    I worked on enough crappy direct-to-video movies where the client was satisfied, but I would not present the same work on a reel, and in some cases would not want my name associated with it at all. On the other hand, I might deliver results beyond expectation where the client would have been satisfied with less, but I was putting in extra effort for my reel. I was paid the same steady check regardless, but there is a greater payoff to consider.
    Last edited by Mr Rid; 10-20-2009 at 07:35 PM.
    "O K, so what's the speed of dark?"

    Demo reel 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOixvRhcs4

  11. #26
    Profesor Pixel Poo Mr Rid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by simpfendoerfer View Post
    Would it be possible to elevate the argument a bit? We know it can be done with front projection of an image, even a photo texture if you wish.

    It would be cool to be able to do it in one environment in 3D. That's why digital 3D is fascinating.

    Yes, I would always suggest using stock images with mapping trickery and compositing where possible, if CG can be avoided.
    Last edited by Mr Rid; 10-20-2009 at 08:26 PM.
    "O K, so what's the speed of dark?"

    Demo reel 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOixvRhcs4

  12. #27
    Profesor Pixel Poo Mr Rid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
    I don't recall saying that EVERYTHING I do I would put on a show reel.
    Never said you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
    When you are working for yourself in your own company and the client LOVES your work and you are satisfied you have done a good job... THAT is pretty much the bottom line.
    Sounds more like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
    Mr. Rid.... try to stop nitpicking what everyone says. PLEASE?
    Not everyone, just you Meggy.
    "O K, so what's the speed of dark?"

    Demo reel 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOOixvRhcs4

  13. #28
    \\ is sparkling // Iain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    4,441
    I think Mr Rid is making a relevant point.

    If the discussion is about whether or not you can satisfy clients' expectations then the example posted by Megalodon (and the results I achieved) would be just fine.

    It seems more the case though, that we are trying to decide if truly realistic grass can be obtained using LW's fur options and as far as I'm concerned, nothing posted here or elsewhere has shown that.

    I can get decent stuff from Sas on a 2'x2' patch using lighting that looks awful on anything else. FFX results just elude me on anything other than tinsel simulation.
    portfolio

    The Liver is evil and must be punished!

  14. #29
    Creative Director jaxtone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,490

    David Bowie citation!

    As Mr Bowie once said:

    An artist is never bigger than his latest hit!

    Time flies!
    Curious

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    688
    My main issue with FFX is the way it works out how thick the fibres are. It is ridiculous. Sasquatch on the other hand, is as it should be, and this fact alone mean Sas wins out of the two. It is such an essential parameter for controlling the look of the fibers, that without the ability to control it properly, the tool is nigh on useless for grass, especially in animation.

    I believe that you can create photoreal grass with Sasquatch, you just have to have the camera the right distance away... Once you have discovered that, the setup is simple. Close = Geometry / Middle = Sasquatch etc / Distant = Texture

    And Megalodon, though your points are perfectly valid, it is still 'your' bottom line. You can't make it everyone elses, no matter how hard you press SHIFT

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •