What Do You Do With 1 Billion Polygons?

[Bruce Gregory]

I've been using Zbrush since almost the very beginning and liking it a lot, preferring to use it in place of many other "3D" modeling and illustration applications. Having relied upon many graphics applications in production and for fun since the mid 1980's, I have the instinctive habit of economy and thrift with regard to memory, (polygons), because it is always wiser to be thrifty, where computers are concerned, than not.

Would some of the professionals and experts please explain to me why it has become a necessity to manipulate so many polygons and add so much physical detail to models where, in the past, such detail has been adequately simulated by the application of "painted" detail and bump maps, or even 2D physical shades of paint on canvas? How do you practically make use of scores of millions of polygons in your work environment and for pay? How common is this need for modeling and rendering these vast numbers of "actual" details? I'm really serious about obtaining answers to these questions, because, quite frankly, I don't understand.

What is more, can anyone tell me why so many people have chosen to use Zbrush and its unbelievably powerful illustrative toolset primarily to render every conceivable human and inhuman facial and bodily deformity, in incredible detail, rather than the many billions of other possible subjects of artist expression? I'm asking this after watching the images at the top of this page roll by for 4 or 5 years, getting more specific in their category of expression by the day. I'm asking because I truly am baffled and I also don't think Mr. Anon's work has been appreciated or used to a fraction of its capabilities unto this day. Why do you think this is so?

I'm interested in any repies to these questions.

Sincerely,

Greg Smith

[zeke3d]

I am looking foward to using the new zbrush to work on such type artwork, more illustrative, but I wont get to do that till the darn link gets emailed to me! I hear ya, but surely with z3 that time has arrived.

[Sebcesoir]

Well, actually, I had to sculpt a full body.
To make it smooth, a need a big amound of polygones. Also it contains a head with wrinkles, so even more polygones. Add hands, more...

If you want to show your character with all gears and accessories, beeing able to deal with millions of polygons will be very usefull.

Instead of validating a character in pieces, you will be able to show it directly in zbrush.

Thats why I like this ability.

But your definitively right: it's not absolutly necessary... We did cinematic quality before beeing able to handle millions of polygones...

But now we have it, it gives more confort of creation, more freedom, less constraints...

My 2 cent opinion...

[Ctrl-Z]

The CG world in general has been pushing towards photorealism more than any other flavor, I think because it's so much easier to benchmark. Certainly in film fx, this is justified, and some combination of normal and displacement maps derived from real geometry is going to interact more realistically with light than a hand-drawn bump map.

Myself, I veer the opposite direction, but the particular style I go for ends up eating more polygons than my system can handle. Do I need a billion in a single model? Of course not. But, spanning every model in the scene? That's possible.

I mean, I don't expect that I'll ever need that, but it's still nice to know the software won't hold me up if I do.

(I will, however, max my system out on 3D layers.)



As for the diversity of subject matter... Get proactive! We have a Challenges Forum (http://zbrushcentral.com/zbc/forumdisplay.php?f=3) for exactly that purpose...

[rikdaren]

I think as computers become more powerful-software also follows suit. Most games and even animations in 3d use low poly geometry and high rez maps to convey the idea of millions of polygons. I think using a millions polys or whatever lets us create digitally more closely what the real world provides.I love Zbrush for its awesome power but since I am still learning this software I have yet to create anything in the millions..however these days its easy to make millions of polys..I do it all the time in Vue5. This is because it takes that much to get the detail in the scene,mountains,trees and so on. My opinion less is better but it depends on what you are creating. Its nice to know the power is there when you need it.
I agree with you that millions of polys are not necessary but to create a real world sculpture like much of what is seen here does in the displays-then all that geometry is needed I suppose. I just use what I need..if its a few thousand polys or a million..as long as I like what I see then I am happy. I tend to use ZBrush more so for painting effects and basic 3d things-but I am still learning all what this software can do.

[Ron Harris]

What is more, can anyone tell me why so many people have chosen to use Zbrush and its unbelievably powerful illustrative toolset primarily to render every conceivable human and inhuman facial and bodily deformity, in incredible detail, rather than the many billions of other possible subjects of artist expression? I'm asking this after watching the images at the top of this page roll by for 4 or 5 years, getting more specific in their category of expression by the day. I am not qualified to answer the Q about the # of polys, but far as subject matter.... for me personally I love images of horror, or at least what I consider horror, which encompasses part of what you are asking. I am 43 and when I was in school, the boys were always either drawing nude girls, and moreso monsters, aliens and spaceships etc. I never knew of many of my friends to draw puppy dogs and butterflies unless it was part of an art assignment. It was pretty much that way for me all the way thru school and has stuck with me. My late father, was an excellant traditional painter. His subject matter consisted of either commercial content or moreso landscapes and portraits. I guess that is part of my fixation with doing busts. He couldn't make a monster for the life of him...so he stuck with what he liked....and I took up the slack in the monster dept. A phase that they always thought,"The boy will grow out of". LOL...NOT.... I occasionally produce something normal(ish) but most of the time prefer not to. I figure I can take a digital photo of the nicities of everyday life and since I can't take images of what lurks in the dark corridors of my minute brain cell, I use zbrush and pencil and paper to let that darker creative side out. Well that's my two cents worth. Guess it boils down to preferences. And I agree that Zbrush's power has barely been tapped. But it sure is fun trying.

kind regards,
Ron

catfishmn@aol.com

[testure]

Some are creating a bigger *****.
(http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=44920)

[zeke3d]

dont forget a bigger scrotum!

[FreddyFish]

Some are creating a bigger *****.
(http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=44920)THAT'S FREAKING HILARIOUS!!!! :lol:

[foleypro]

S.S.A.S


Movie and Gameing...

[rimasson]

The whole scene of the Birth picture i created for ZB3 launch has 60 millions polys.
I would have been able to create it otherwise but it would have took much more tiùe....

[Codexus]

It's all part of the evolution of CG. A few years ago, to do 2D graphics you had to worry about the numbers of colors in the palette and find ways to work around that by manipulating single pixels one by one. It's only when those technical limitations started to go away that digital painting was born. Artists were finally able to apply the same traditional techniques that they used on traditional media without worrying about the details of how it worked.

Now the same thing is happening in 3D, instead of manipulating a single vertex, we're sculpting millions. And while we're not entirely there yet, we're slowly going to an era when the artists won't even have to think about the polygons. It will just work and maybe there are going to be billions of polygons behind the scene to make that happen or some other techniques not invented yet but that will only be of interest to the programmers not the digital sculpting artists.

[Ctrl-Z]

Codexus just nailed it.

(...and reminded me very much of Scott McCloud (http://scottmccloud.com/home/scott/scott.html))

[SalmonGod]

Codexus did nail it... it's all about freeing up the artist... what I love about it is that I dont need to worry about topology to make something look nice quickly... it still helps... but now we can take a primitive sphere and make a great, detailed character bust out of it without having to wrestle with lack of edge flow... when we need more room, we can just hit divide again... then at the end of the project, if we need lower poly counts, we can just redraw the topology

that's like the whole point of zbrush in my opinion is that it allows us to explore first and then worry about efficiency later... I can have a vague idea of what I want to do, and still do something... we can literally sketch in 3d with almost as much freedom as a pencil on paper... a 3 years ago when I first got into 3d, I would have had to develop and plan first... it was just unheard of

I think the obsession with making characters, especially humanoid, is they are a great traditional measure of skill... I've been told again and again that a photorealistic human face is the most difficult thing to do in the world, so everybody pushes and pushes themselves to accomplish that face... after they've made it, they usually move on to more playful things and with much more confidence

[Bruce Gregory]

What everyone seems to be saying is that we need 1 billion polygons because we've got access to them.

Let's take the case of much of the imagery seen at ZBrush Central: It is static and never will be used for animation or panning scenes within a 3D environment, etc. Using even version 1.55 of Zbrush, a person is able to create many of the effects of realism and detail using the 2.5D tools and some basic low poly models. I've seen it with my own eyes. Less labor involved, too.

What I am asking is who, professionally, for money, needs to manipulate actual polygonal geometry with these very large numbers of polygons and vertices? If this is actually an industry based need, could you please explain to me how you are making use of them? I know people creating gaming characters are using normal maps created from high resolution models, but I don't think even they are at a level where that many polygons are necessary to create the very limited level of realism that is practical to employ in modern games.

We are all being pushed to constantly ugrade our hardware to accomodate, if I may use the word, our high tech lust - not for any reason relating to necessity, just lust for more. But more of what?

Truthfully, it is not photorealism that is any longer the goal. That was achieved with far smaller polygon counts. Real life objects are not viewed at distances, normally, where the kind of detail displayed in the models made with ZBrush 3 are visible. Just look around you. Look at life. More likely, many users are simply demonstrating an increasing obsession for micro detail, the kind not visible in nature or elsewhere other than in the regions that the electron microscope has enabled us to "see".

I'm beginning to think that the majority of ZBrush users are simply demonstrating examples of their growing obsession. I don't see an overwhelming industry need for these kinds of physically detailed models. Not unless all of the motion pictures and games, from this point on, will contain nothing but more and better orcs, cave trolls and nasty cave dwelling creatures. What a bounty of entertainment!

Does anyone else find the overwhelming presence of yet another monster or human face a tad monotonous? Is there anyone else out there that has a desire to see something else - possibly even something beautiful?

Greg Smith

[marcus_civis]

What I am asking is who, professionally, for money, needs to manipulate actual polygonal geometry with these very large numbers of polygons and vertices?

I think Marc Boulay might say they're useful:

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=43470

[SalmonGod]

go look at Spiraloids 60 second doodle thread

not insanely detailed... but I also cant imagine such things being made so quickly in any other app, or without massive amounts of polygons

what it comes down to is... instead of vertices (tedious, technical, require planning and a solid pre-fabricated image to be useful), we now have digital clay (less technical, more organic, quick, dont require planning or a solid vision, friendly to traditional artists)

in other words... we dont absolutely need it... but it makes everything so so very much simpler, and cg art can only thrive as a result... when I open ZBrush, it's like play-time... Maya has never ever been play-time to me

and I reiterate on the obsession with detailed humanoid characters... it's just how people are training themselves... look at traditional art training... how many thousands of figure sketches will an art student put out before graduating?... it's the same thing... most of us here are here to learn... if we were already over that hump, most of us wouldnt be posting here because we'd be too busy or our work would be in commercial products/under NDAs

besides... I think there are alot of exceptions... I know I've seen two of boozy floozy's threads get top row in the last few weeks and there's a cartoon in the middle of the row right now

it's also my personal opinion that massive detail just makes an image more interesting to look at... sometimes I like to just scribble in 2.5D and go crazy with details using alphas... it's nothing but a cracked and mottled surface, but it's so much for my eyes to absorb that I can just stare at it for a while and be satisfied... I can get the same satisfaction from looking at an extreme close-up hi-res photo...

and on that note... we still have only seen bits and pieces of photo-realism in cg (much of it in the Beta Tester gallery!!)... we have accomplished digital actors who can 100% fool the average person, but I still don't think we've managed to fool a trained observer for extended periods

it seems to me like you're saying that 3d has hit its practical ceiling... but I think we still have loads of boundaries to push...

[Ctrl-Z]

What everyone seems to be saying is that we need 1 billion polygons because we've got access to them.I think you're coming from the basic misunderstanding that anyone wants to hit a billion. That's not the case. What we want is for the limit to be so high, we don't have to think about limits.



Using even version 1.55 of Zbrush, a person is able to create many of the effects of realism and detail using the 2.5D tools and some basic low poly models. I've seen it with my own eyes. Less labor involved, too.Of course. And for a single static image, that's the best way to go about it.

What you're missing is a fundamental difference between 3D and 2D, or even 2.5D -- the 3D assets you create can be repositioned, repurposed, and reused in other static images. Yes, you can detail your scene in 2.5D, it'll be faster and less demanding of your system resources... But, you can't take that detail with you. Embed it in the model, and you're set.




What I am asking is who, professionally, for money, needs to manipulate actual polygonal geometry with these very large numbers of polygons and vertices? If this is actually an industry based need, could you please explain to me how you are making use of them?Trick question. The industry need is for all of that detail to be stowed away in displacement maps so that nobody will manipulate actual polygonal geometry with anything close to that number of polygons and vertices. Same as it ever was.




I know people creating gaming characters are using normal maps created from high resolution models, but I don't think even they are at a level where that many polygons are necessary to create the very limited level of realism that is practical to employ in modern games.First off, you're saying this at the absolute beginning of PS3's life. Give it a year or two, and see what kind of realism is necessary for a game to even compete in the modern market.

Second, the generation of games currently on shelves pushed Z2 well past it's limits. Artists had to find workarounds, break their characters into pieces, detail armor seperately, etc. Eliminating that hurdle frees the artist to better integrate all the pieces.

Does all that detail contribute to gameplay? Not particularly. It promotes immersion, which is sometimes useful. But mostly it just bolsters sales.

Regardless, realtime gaming is a warped example to begin with. It's film you should be looking at.




We are all being pushed to constantly ugrade our hardware to accomodate, if I may use the word, our high tech lust - not for any reason relating to necessity, just lust for more.Increased poly limits were demanded by the users; professional or amateur is beside the point. Nobody's pushing us to do anything. But, many have been constrained for too long, and now they're not.




Truthfully, it is not photorealism that is any longer the goal."The goal" doesn't exist. There's no unified vision of where creativity should be steered. The trend seems to be towards hyper-realism -- stylized, but believable in the context it's presented.




That was achieved with far smaller polygon counts. Real life objects are not viewed at distances, normally, where the kind of detail displayed in the models made with ZBrush 3 are visible.Key word: Normally. CG lives for the exceptions.




Just look around you. Look at life. More likely, many users are simply demonstrating an increasing obsession for micro detail, the kind not visible in nature or elsewhere other than in the regions that the electron microscope has enabled us to "see".They're exploring a freedom they didn't have a few days ago. Let the novelty wear off a bit and see what they come up with.

(but, yes. there will always be trolls and zombies.)





I'm beginning to think that the majority of ZBrush users are simply demonstrating examples of their growing obsession. I don't see an overwhelming industry need for these kinds of physically detailed models. Not unless all of the motion pictures and games, from this point on, will contain nothing but more and better orcs, cave trolls and nasty cave dwelling creatures.They won't. But, demo reels might. And, that's fine -- one anatomy study's as appropriate as another. (Meanwhile, your reel should reflect a personal obsession or two...)




Does anyone else find the overwhelming presence of yet another monster or human face a tad monotonous? Is there anyone else out there that has a desire to see something else - possibly even something beautiful?Are you saying there's no beauty in the human face? No diversity in monsters? I find that hard to believe.

Regardless, this isn't an art gallery. It's the user group for a piece of software, and the work displayed will naturally reflect what the users feel like doing with it in their spare time. If the will of the people is not to your liking, you've basically got two options: Lead by example, or abandon ship.

*shrug*

[tonytrout]

I agree about the monsters, they are alarmingly repetitious. I must make one some day. I guess the challenge is to make something original.

[Bruce Gregory]

Marcus:

Though Marc Might find the 1 billion polygon limit useful, I wonder if he finds it necessary. What is his product and who buys it? The detail contained in these static images could just as well, and probably faster, be "painted" on and rendered as a UV texture, the actual physical detail that "sticks out" in sillouette can quickly be added to different poses with more 2D tools. Such a painting process would not require him to reinvest in PS4 or better hardware, and the results, quite possibly, might be more entertaining.

Judging by what I know of the original ZBrush, its design and functionality, I think I can safely say that Mr. Alon's original intentions embodied a thrifty approach with regard to systems and their required resources. I believe he has been pushed by the ogre makers to go somewhat beyond this practice. All of his original demos featured liberal usage of 2D and 2.5D painting techniques. Fast and fabulous. Free and easy. Highly overlooked in practice by others. I'm just asking that some reconsider what he originally proposed with this most unusual, yet useful software. And, things were simpler using these methods. As you grow older, you'll appreciate simplicity more, I think.

And, I might add, that the kinds of images Marc produces are precisely the kind you would get by looking at an actual insect under an electron microscope. So, you could say that his personal obsession is with mimicing the highly detailed look of an electron microscopic print.

I guess Mr. Levitz is right when he says this is not an art gallery. It seems to be a place where we all learn to create exactly the same kind of highly detailed content, especially pores, spores, insects, monsters and perversely shaped humanoid characters. Incredibly interesting if you are obsessed with such things.

And, I really do enjoy Mr. Bannerman's contributions here. One of the last of the real Mohicans. And, I doubt he is pushing the 1 billion polygon limit.

Greg Smith

[Crusoe the Painter]

Well, I don't know about 1 billion polys, but I hate painting pores by hand. Doing it with a brush, and being able to easily extract those into a normal map is killer. Same with wrinkles.

And the ant? Well, I'm sure yoy could paint a normal or displacement by hand. But it's truly quicker to quicker to texture, like you would do with clay.

[ryankingslien]

Well, I don't know about 1 billion polys, but I hate painting pores by hand. Doing it with a brush, and being able to easily extract those into a normal map is killer. Same with wrinkles.

And the ant? Well, I'm sure yoy could paint a normal or displacement by hand. But it's truly quicker to quicker to texture, like you would do with clay.Hey Crusoe, One tip on how to create really cool pores via brush is to select the clay brush and set its elevation to 10, set your Alpha to the default alpha, set Brush: Edit Density to 95 or so, z intensity to 50 or so, draw size at around 150 then just brush on the model.

Insta-Pores!

:)

ryan

[marcus_civis]

Greg,

Marc is a technical illustrator specialising in reconstructions from fossil evidence and so on. That is how he makes his living. As an illustrator myself, I can appreciate the greater flexibilty the new version of ZBrush brings. Certainly there are other ways of doing things - we managed without computers once - but the new ZBrush provides a number of different ways of approaching a problem without particular constraints and for any artist that is valuable. I agree that few will ever need a billion polygons but, as has been said, what's important is not having to worry about hitting a limit.

Ofer Alon has not abandoned ZBrush's first principles. This extra functionality does not require new hardware. My ancient and low spec machine [1800 MHz cpu, 768 MB RAM] is below the modest system requirements indicated on Pixologic's web site and yet I can now produce models of 8 million polygons - without using HD Geometry - something impossible for me with ZBrush 2. HD Geometry is not dependent on high system specs either as the working method automatically adjusts to what your system can handle.


As you grow older, you'll appreciate simplicity more, I think.
I've just turned fifty. I've been an illustrator for thirty years. I like simplicity, certainly, and that's why I like ZBrush. It's a complex program but its basic working methods are straightforward and intuitive. At least, I find them so.

Like you, I find a lot of the material posted here uninteresting. But I don't think you'll get a wider spectrum of artists using one particular software anywhere.

[itsalive]

Rapid Prototype Tech.

+ With a poly count this high I can divide the mesh enough times to really get that working with clay feel.

Lastly I want real Texturework on my models. Not Bumpmaps or Normal maps. I want High Def psychically really, real, textures on my models surface that can be printed out on some fancy pants Rapid Prototype machine out there in California!

[Bruce Gregory]

Marcus, I've got you beat. I'm turning 52 next month. I'm glad to hear that Mr. Alon is not abandoning his original principles with regard to ZBrush. One thing that is worth remembering is that he named it ZBrush, not ZSculpt. I think he must have had some kind of painting in mind when he named the program. True, one can "paint-sculpt" now with these high limits for polygon numbers, but I think he wanted to show how powerful painting in 2D and 2.5D can be, using this most unusual toolset. I believe these 2D and 2.5D tools have been underused and underrated. Just look, all of those original tools are still there - must be there for a reason, I figure.

Another note: people keep saying that ZBrush is not an animation program . . . well, with all of these new additions to the software, (particularly the posing tools with real time perspective, and the new movie functionality . . .), I'm not so sure. I'll bet you could come up with something pretty nifty along the lines of a basic animation script, if you had the time.

Why don't we start producing some more interesting content and demonstrating some of the relatively undiscovered methods for doing so?

Also, glad to hear that your machine is of the same caliber that mine is and still capable of doing amazing things with the current ZBrush release.

Greg Smith

[marcus_civis]

Greg,

I think you were right when you said that ZBrush has been pushed in a particular direction. But it still has amazing 2/2.5D painting capabilities. I have done some work on ZBrush 'natural media' brushes and plan to produce a UI/script set up when I can. I think the new UI customization (when it's implemented in a more comfortable fashion!) will provide the means to extend ZBrush's range in new and exciting ways.

On animation: it may be possible at some stage. It is certainly something that interests me, though whether it could ever be practically done through zscripting is a different matter. But ZBrush's new Matcap materials, realtime shadows and real-time rendering could make blazingly fast animations for some situations, so it's worth thinking about.

As for 'alternative' content, I'm with you on that. I'm certainly planning stuff of my own and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Cheers,

[mouse_art]

What i want to do with 1B Polygons, err i subdivide it close to that limit, and then go out to get a coffee.(although prefer tea.) :D


Seriously, i think the same way, it's not the question if you have need for it but it's nice to know that, when you need it, that you just can work, without to spam the company full with feature requests, and then wait some years.


And i'm glad that Pixolator(and Pixologic) is thinking this way.

[danmarell]

i think the 1 billion is definitely needed. I work in commercials and very often we will get a request from a client like "Can we have a 8k render for our poster/billboard/print" or there might be a shot that might move the camera in very close to an object. when your working at these resolutions, you need the textures to be able to stand up before the texture to render pixel ratio gets to 1:1.

I always found zbrush 2 frustrating when i needed that extra subD level. i could always go up to 8 million or so but wanted that extra one to get the detail in a certain area.

As soon as we get HD geometry export in displacement maps the better.