Human Progress

[bobakabob]

Stunning result though despite the pain

Brilliant how you're pushing the software to produce these hyper real animations. Have you reported these issues to the dev team? Looking forward to updates.

[Tranimatronic]

Apologies if I am completely out to lunch here, and this bears no relevance on what you are doing, but for transparency in the simpleSkin shader, if you supply a subdermis depth where the depth is greater than the depth of the geo, you get translucency. I think if you keep going with it you will get transparency. I was going to try this on a jellyfish, but never got around to it.
Basically run a (black=no depth, white=really deep) texture through DP's remap for your subdermis depth. Keep increasing the +ve scale and you will get translucent. Keep going for transparent. If I have time I will give it a go tonight & post the results.

Cheers
T

[probiner]

Progress for sure Thanks for keep sharing these milestones of yours Chris.

One question about the eyeball. I presume the Sclera (white part) has SSS. There were moments where I felt the surface was faceted, not smoothed. Now this could be because of two things. Skin shader is faceting, as I have seen happening (maybe mostly on double sided), or the youtube video compression is the culprit. Anyway the sensation is quite mild. I was just curious what was causing it.
Also some "striping" in the back of the eye, on top, at the start and end of the video. Surely these are parts of the model one won't see in your project. Just curious.

Cheers.

[UnCommonGrafx]

Problems, and all, seem to make for some stunning work.

Amazing.

[Chris Jones]

Thanks everyone!

Have you reported these issues to the dev team?

Not as such - I can't be certain it's not user error so I was hoping for confirmation first. Plus, I find the process of reporting a bit draining... so hopefully someone from dev will pop in here and save me the trouble

Apologies if I am completely out to lunch here, and this bears no relevance on what you are doing, but for transparency in the simpleSkin shader, if you supply a subdermis depth where the depth is greater than the depth of the geo, you get translucency. I think if you keep going with it you will get transparency. I was going to try this on a jellyfish, but never got around to it.
Basically run a (black=no depth, white=really deep) texture through DP's remap for your subdermis depth. Keep increasing the +ve scale and you will get translucent. Keep going for transparent. If I have time I will give it a go tonight & post the results.

Cheers
T

Not out to lunch at all, although I have some doubts about whether it will work in this case, considering the object is basically a sphere with an inverted refractive shape inside it, with the geometry overlapping at the cornea. Could be worth looking into though.

I presume the Sclera (white part) has SSS. There were moments where I felt the surface was faceted, not smoothed. Now this could be because of two things. Skin shader is faceting, as I have seen happening (maybe mostly on double sided), or the youtube video compression is the culprit. Anyway the sensation is quite mild. I was just curious what was causing it.
Also some "striping" in the back of the eye, on top, at the start and end of the video. Surely these are parts of the model one won't see in your project. Just curious.

I think the faceting you're seeing is YouTube's interpretation of the the finer veins in the bump map. The "striping" is due to the UVs being squashed up towards the back to give the front as much res as possible, along with me being careless with the detailing back there. As you say, it won't be visible (unless I need to pop an eye out of a socket, in which case I'll have to go back and do it properly...).

(c:

[erikals]

maybe you can use a fake SSS trick? such as... >

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=206574
...or...
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost...94&postcount=2

[Tranimatronic]

the idea in my post above didn't work. I can get it translucent, but not transparent. Also you don't get much control. I thought you may be able to fine tune the translucent feel by moving the subdermal depth (having a big gap between epidermal depth and subdermal) but in the end it just starts to look muddy and blobby, which I guess is exactly what you were trying to avoid.
Also my test render crashed, so I have nothing to show. Ill have another pass at it tonight, but I dont think the idea is going to work. Oh well

[djwaterman]

Lovely iris sculpt Chris, a pity it was of no use (not even to generate a normal map?). I bet you found those super hi res photographs of human eyes on the net, where you basically realize the iris is a ring of naked tendons stretching towards the pupil. Not a window on the soul at all but a sphincter really.

[Chris Jones]

maybe you can use a fake SSS trick? such as... >

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=206574
...or...
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost...94&postcount=2

Could do... but I suspect that won't take bumps into account.

the idea in my post above didn't work. I can get it translucent, but not transparent. Also you don't get much control. I thought you may be able to fine tune the translucent feel by moving the subdermal depth (having a big gap between epidermal depth and subdermal) but in the end it just starts to look muddy and blobby, which I guess is exactly what you were trying to avoid.
Also my test render crashed, so I have nothing to show. Ill have another pass at it tonight, but I dont think the idea is going to work. Oh well

Thought that might be the case, thanks for trying though.

Lovely iris sculpt Chris, a pity it was of no use (not even to generate a normal map?). I bet you found those super hi res photographs of human eyes on the net, where you basically realize the iris is a ring of naked tendons stretching towards the pupil. Not a window on the soul at all but a sphincter really.

Yeah in macro it looks pretty gnarly when you shine a bright light across it... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ose-shots.html Realistically I don't need that level of detail though, it was more just for this demo. I generated a displacement and made a more detailed colour/bump map, but without SSS my first rough attempt just seemed to work better.

[erikals]

Could do... but I suspect that won't take bumps into account.

afaik, it should, at least the first one, as it only uses an illuminosity channel trick.
(though can't guarantee it...)

edit: Chanlum should work too...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost...&postcount=181

[lardbros]

Following your work like a hawk! Finding it all massively inspiring, as always!!! Nice to see such awesome results, and I'm sure the pain isn't purely down to LightWave's deficiencies... when you're pushing the boundaries of photo-realism, most software seems to push back quite hard!

Great to see your techniques, and very nice of you to share nodal setups etc!

Thanks
Tim

[BigHache]

Chris, what did you do for the transition from sclera to cornea?

Nice work on the blood vessels. Those are always tricky.

[Chris Jones]

afaik, it should, at least the first one, as it only uses an illuminosity channel trick.
(though can't guarantee it...)

edit: Chanlum should work too...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost...&postcount=181

I'm still having flickering issues with Sigma 2, so I might look into those when I revisit. Even getting any of the "real" SSS shaders to behave close to correctly was a bit of a strain though, so you'll have to forgive my skepticism.

Following your work like a hawk! Finding it all massively inspiring, as always!!! Nice to see such awesome results, and I'm sure the pain isn't purely down to LightWave's deficiencies... when you're pushing the boundaries of photo-realism, most software seems to push back quite hard!

Well I hold LW fully accountable for my misery! But yes, I have to keep reminding myself that switching to software X would most likely unveil a plethora of all new roadblocks.

Chris, what did you do for the transition from sclera to cornea?

Basically a gradient on Z Coordinate blending Sigma 2 into Dielectric, based on tbagger's solution. Here's a snapshot of the nodes (I don't think that Fresnel is doing anything useful..).



Oh, almost forgot - feature request: get Sigma 2 working with VPR (and the rest of the shaders for that matter). I'm back to F9 previews for most of this. :\

[erikals]

might be of interest >

www.youtube.com/watch?v=90AU6D8qEhc#t=4m11s

[erikals]

also see >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread....l-and-tutorial

and... >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread....l=1#post979385

(i know, some links are down...) :o