I’d like to use these tools on my 3D models. Are they only painting tools as I can’t seem to paint hair on just my model.
Is there anyway I can incorporate both?
Castlelass, these are 2.5D tools, meaning that they work on pixols, not polygons. So they are for use after the 3D model is completed and dropped to the canvas (converted to pixols).
Hmm, but I still don’t understand 
I’m a bit thick I think.
Does anyone have one of those handy dandy zcripts which show some of these things on a dropped model? The minute I choose the brush it seems I am working in a flat dimension with my model. I also don’t know where to find the altered model which I have snake hooked.
um
:eek:
Hi Castle
Go there
(slide the page)it’s a .zip file
There is a Sarabel Script about snakehook and hairs !
Hope this Help!
Pilou
Thankyou Frenchy Pilou, Sarabel’s script is wonderful in the way it covered a lot of the interface. I particularly liked the noise addition.
I’m not sure but the script stopped after the eyes and doesn’t look like the image on the web. So I don’t know if Sarabels head turned out 3D or not loll. Maybe it was mean’t to stop at that part.
It was very nice of you to take the time find it to show me
You’re speaking different languages to one another.
A 3D object which has been dropped to the canvas is converted to Pixols. It still retains all the information related to it’s depth and normals, which means:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>If your character is facing to the side, you can slide an object underneath their arm without it falling behind their torso.
<LI>You can change lighting after the fact, with highlights and shadows adjusting appropriately
<LI>You can still affect how light reacts to your dropped objects by painting materials onto them.[/list]So, they’re right - pixols are very different from 2D paint. And if your final output is an illustration rather than animation, these tools and a little planning ahead are more than you’ll ever need.
But, it’s not the 3D you’re thinking of, either. Or rather, to clear up the vocabulary, it’s not geometry. There’s no mesh involved.
What you see is three-dimensional. What you don’t see isn’t there anymore.
You can’t pick up your dropped 3D object and rotate it again, or export it to another 3D application. So in that sense, the tools you’re asking about will not help you.
Smudge, hook, fiber, and snakebrush are possible because they’re just moving depth/normal embedded pixels around. For those to function in the 3D you’re used to, they’d have to add geometry with each stroke you draw, significantly restructuring your model and probably doing irreparable harm to your textures.
In another version or two, I hope that will be possible. But for now, I don’t think our computers are nearly fast enough.
No Castle for the Sarabel Script it’s just 2D at the End!
With Texture Master you can “paint” a 3d volume (with 3D tools if you want,2.5 and 2d) but the result is a a 3d volume with “paint”+light+material etc… (the tools 3d adding stay 2D but have an aspect 3d!!!) It’s not so bad
So you obtain a real 3D object rotating but painting!!!
See the Tut N°2 Inside texture master button Show me
Hope this help!
Pilou
You’ve hit the nail on the head, Ctrl-Z – and your explanation is very clear. Thanks!
Here’s another example of why polygons to pixols is pretty much a one-way ticket: Draw 6 spheres on the canvas in a circle. Use the smudge brush to blend them all together in a ring. Now, how would the computer be able to differentiate them in order to pick one of the spheres back up as polygons again?
In a way, it’s kind of like pouring several glasses of water into a pitcher. You may be able to refill the glass with an amount equal to one glass, but the molecules are going to be hopelessly mixed up. Substitute “model” for glass", “canvas” for “pitcher” and “pixol” for “molecule”, and you’ll have a pretty good understanding of what’s happening.
Castle,
I have posted about this before. We are in the same boat.
ZBrush have three different paint dimensions.
- 2D = Flat Paint
- 2D and half = “Pixol” I call it as “Evil Pixol” because you lose half of your 3D object into Canvas and never be able to bring it back.
- 3D = Real world dimension; rotatable and transformable model object in 3D space.
ZBrush is not fully compliant with all of those dimensions. But ZBrush is considered very powerful software with some of those functions.
Some of tools in “Tool” palette are pixol brush that would slam your 3D into 2D and half (Evil-Pixol) . The snakehook and fiberbrush are pixol brush. I have posted a request to implenement 3D tools in; 3D Snakehook and 3D Fiberbrush.
PIX posted some of his recent pics from beta zbrush that they are planning to release. Take a peek and guess what they might have added new tools.
Washington, compared to other paint applications, and even the final renders of true 3D applications, ZBrush gives you the equivalent of two-and-a-half glasses of water instead of just two. Calling them “evil pixols” is like complaining that the third glass is “half empty”! Instead, you should be glad that ZBrush gives you half a glass more water than any other paint application. Even the final renders of 3D applications are only 2D.
If you are a 3D animator, not an illustrator, then ZBrush is not going to benefit you as much with the current version as it does an illustrator. But for those who are illustrators, that extra half-D that is present even after the scene is composed and rendered, and the brushes that use it, are very powerful art tools.
I know we all would like more powerul 3D tools, but I just don’t see what is ‘evil’ about pixols.
Oh please! and stop it. I was not complaining about pixol. I was just giving facts about it what can happen to 3D models.
I like to call pixol as “Evil Pixol” because that is what reflected to me.
Evil-Pixol is necessary for 2D features to capture half of 3D models into 2D “Canvas” for a pretty picture. Thou art “Evil Pixol”!!
Hi Washington,
I think the point that was being made is that since ZBrush is built on the Pixol technology, saying “evil pixol” is the equivalent of saying “evil ZBrush.”
A pixel is what other programs use. Each pixel contains X position, Y position, R value, G value and B value.
A pixol is what ZBrush uses. In addition to the 5 pieces of information above, it also contains things like Z position, orientation, and material. Combined with the 3D rendering engine, this creates the 2.5D effect and allows ZBrush to do what a pure 2D program cannot.
Polygons, for all of their great capabilities for animation, etc., suffer from certain inherent difficulties. First off, they are a drain on your system resources. Second, in order to avoid bogging your computer down, you need to make meshes with few polygons – but that leads to sharp edges. Third, in a true 3D program polygons are your only available scene building block. If something doesn’t have geometry (polygons or things like NURBS, which are essentially generators to create polygons), then it simply doesn’t exist. This means that unless you can create geometry for something, it won’t be in your scene.
By using pixols, ZBrush allows you to add much, much more detail into a scene than would otherwise be possible. It also allows ZBrush to render in real time. When you do a best render, it runs MUCH faster than an equivalent render in a pure 3D program. All of these benefits are, as Jaycephus pointed out, a blessing for the illustrator.
It just so happens, however, that the technology also allows ZBrush to do many things that are great for 3D animators. You’ve been using some of those features already. More will be available in the next version. The problem that you’re encountering is that you don’t seem to want the non-3D features, but keep trying to use them anyway (whether by accident or intent). It’s sort of like having a VW “Bug” and complaining that the trunk is under the hood even though you never use the trunk and let someone else take care of the engine for you.
The fact is that pixols are very, very important to ZBrush regardless of whether you are an illustrator or an animator. They are its core technology, and because they are located somewhere between 2D and 3D they require a unique set of tools and a unique workflow. Believe it or not, they do let ZBrush do the things that you love it for. So please, don’t call them “evil.”
maybe they should be called “Evol Pixols” 
Matt,
Yes, everything you said is true. I am quite impressed with most of ZBrush’s features. The only problem I have with it is that it did not have AM or FM switches to select which frequency I would like to listen to. It is same thing with ZBrush that did not have switch for 2D, 2.5D and 3D to function separately or complete compliant dimensions without losing valuable model or illustration. In my opinion, nothing should end up with 2D or canvas like Han Solo (Harrison Ford) who ended up in a tar bed in the “Star Wars” movie.
If all the tools in TOOL palette are all paint dimensions compliant and able to store polygons, pixol, and pixel information in virtual memory without using up system resources then it would be awesome because it would be editable in any paint dimensions. People would recognize ZBrush as “Breaking paint dimensions barrier boldly no man have gone before”
Hey Frenchy Pilou
Thanks for really good tutorial link. It shows about everything I need to know this far(after two weeks).
When I first tried the tools I thought yes they are flatish tools then I saw a head script tutorial with spikey hair and doubted myself.
Perhaps the toolbar should be segmented. 3D tools and painting tools, bottom half and top half but I know little so perhaps should not comment.
I can tell after the small time of testing Zbrush out, that it will be a really useful program for me in addition to a modelling program. (Thats if my next question can’t be achievable - new thread
Take today for instance, I saw a free 3d lowish poly male body on the web and I know I shouldn’t use other peoples things but I am still experimenting. I modelled my friends face on the head of the mesh! Fascinating stuff. I can’t wait to put his photo on the head to see how real the whole thing looks! I’ve also made a dragon and put it through Poser.
The only drawback I see and it’s probably due to my inexperience is keeping the poly count down, also the markers are tricky - placing things
I’ve been reading up on the new release and it sounds absolutely awesome and may assist me in the above problem.
I don’t think Evol pixol was being evil loll. I can relate to what he is saying. For illustrators the tools would be great but not for someone like me. Mind you the pro’s outweigh the cons. Uno he loves Z heheh.
I value all the comments because every little bit helps to understand the big picture. Hope you can all help me with my next problem
Excellent tute Sarabel
Aurick brings up a good point with the smudged spheres example, but it got my imagination going…
It would be remarkably useful if the computer didn’t even try to differentiate between the blended elements, merging them instead into one object. Perhaps using layers to keep elements that need seperation from blending together? It’d be an organic solution to a mechanical problem, somewhere between booleans and metaballs but with infinitely finer control than either affords.
That’s hugely in the realm of fantasy, however. We can all imagine the interface, but the under-the-hood stuff would not move quickly, if it were even possible.
It’s nice to dream, though. And I bring this up because we’re lucky enough to be using the one application out there which has a chance of someday achieving it.