ZBrushCentral

the wrestler (WiP museum_scene)

ZBrush Artworks
#801

Thanks patpotlood mealea.
sculptris (or blender dyntopo) and z remesher:

  1. Duplicate the imported mesh
  2. Dynamesh one of them.
  3. Z remesh it.
  4. Subdivide the new mesh as needed and project it to the original imported mesh.
    This way we have a nice mesh with loops that captured all the details. Unfortunately (LOL) it also captured all the less dense ugly triangulated areas, so more sculpting is needed.

Oh, a tip on Z displacements.
OK, you already are aware why to export and re import the obj, after Nx hrepeat Wrepeat of displ maps - UVs.
What it you gonna apply the displ mesh on thin meshes? The black value of the displ map says carve deep, the white says extrude. So, what if the deep black carves deeper than your mesh? You know the issue. In displacement panel properties, under “create displ map” button section, there is a slider Mid 0.5 (by default). Obviously you thought, “it is about baking of a displ map something”. Well, it also says to the displacer where is the mid point, the grey tone of the B&W depth map. So, moving it to the left means that black (deep areas) become the neutral point and they don’t carve. The whole dynamics of the disp map goes to extrudes only. I hope I made it clear and helpful. LOL

#802

I also have no idea what polygroup by normal means. :wink:
Well, I do have an idea and it works. But I don’t use it.
Mealea, be cool, right? Zbrush has a few bugs but it doesn’t go as you describe it.
OK, dislp maps baking: Forget all about it for the moment.
Has little to do with baking nice panels-maps for applying them as displ maps, on GUV etc loopistic tricks.
I don’t bake displ maps. I simply construct a panel, a relief, then I use BPR to render a depth picture. Export it as a tif. This will be your map.
There are a few tricks doing this but displacement panel is not involved at all.
Displ panel baking is related to other workarounds. How to bake hi subdivision levels on a low cage-mesh with UVs. We’re talking about a multi resolution figure sculpting process. How to export it to an external render engine. Right?
Obviously, when you use disp maps on a multires mesh with GUVs, loops etc, you don’t have to bake anything. You only export the base mesh + UVs and the maps. It is “pre baked” LOL

#803

so…
Its not a matter of being cool or not, Im just saying that since I have never seen this work the way its supposed to I don’t know what it is supposed to do. This is like giving someone a hammer and discovering that the hammer you have given them only works as a saw, they won’t understand the instructions.
I still have no idea what is going on.
I thought that baking was when you took whatever map you were using and applied it to the geometry so that it changed the actual shape, if that is not the case then what is it actually for?
Are you saying that the displacement pallet in ZBrush is not for working in ZBrush?

Attachments

OhFerFuckSake.jpg

#804

Are you saying that the displacement pallet in ZBrush is not for working in ZBrush?

The baking section, yes, you got it right. It is not for use in zbrush. To do what actually? You already have a multi resolution mesh there.
Now, what the mid 0.5 value is doing there, on the baking section… OK, yes and now. It also affects the behavior of the applied displacements in zbrush. A UI is a difficult thing to do. No complains then.
Mealea I could explain it further via a google hangout.

#805

displacement baking is used when you want to export a high poly mesh as a low polygon mesh,
the high details you skulpted are then saved as a displacementmap,
that fits the low polymesh,
kind of the opposite of what we do now.

reason for this, is that most 3d softwares and their renderers can’t render milions of polygons,
like zbrush can.

@michalis,i wasn’t aware of the mid slider tip
that will change a lot

grtz p

#806

We are doing this backwards???

#807

Yes mealea, backwards. Well… :lol:
BTW this attracted me to such methods. To do things backwards, and more precisely.
@patpodlood, I wasn’t aware either. Such parameter exists under any app, I found it weird not existing in zb. Well, I tried it. ZB UI is a kind of a videogame, you have to unlock things.

New tip? Or rather something odd I noticed?
Under render properties we have a smooth normals option. So, we can render low poly meshes without seeing ugly quads. Right?
It’s great to render low poly by just adding bump maps etc. You can also add noise, choose a shader with bumpiness etc.
Well, when you enable smooth normal rendering, Zb discards bumps. (the bumps you asked under displacement properties panel)
It also discards any surface noise.
Nice…
I wonder, any developer noticed it so far? Such bugs exist, some releases now.

#808

:cry:small_orange_diamond:confused:some image, help me understand something
thank you both:o

#809

Besides loopinitis :lol:
I’m doodling a bit,
here’s my reverse way to anatomy I guess so.
A ~ 300k dynamesh.
I’m posting this for one reason only.
To show how wrong someone can be when trusting the results of BPR.
The BPR version
satyr1BPR.jpg

Same sculpt imported in blender, rendered under cycles.
Satyr1cycles.jpg

You may understand what’s my problem, right? How to sculpt when I can’t see how sculpting captures light?
Idealistic approaches, as anatomy etc is not among my interests. Please accept this. I know vey well what anatomy teaches. Still, not my true concern for many many reasons. One of them is: I don’t like much “baclava” the famous oriental delight.

#810

and here you mean baclava, really… lol… but your compare image show, why you have to decide where you want render before you sculpt … i hate that, it makes always a desaster exchanging between programs, not so drastic as you show here, very good example really, but when we know what we want, of course we do see the nuance changes … can we dream of a sculpting surrounding that acts real and is available in every app? what would it take to program that, given the computing power we have now available? is it really that difficult? i doubt, i believe its more not too many care…

#811

Sooo…
Which one is better?
Both look good to me… The ZBrush one has more detail but is sort of oiled looking or maybe still damp clay, and the blender one looks softer but is lacking in detail and dithered, or maybe looks like plaster…
What happens to a sculptor that works in a studio for a year on a block of marble and then discovers that it looks different in their clients garden?

Also I know how and why now Im having so much trouble grasping some of the basic stuff Im doing BACKWARDS in ZBrush… and other programs. Thank you for that fact.
I will go into that tomorrow if I have less work to do… Im exhausted, its time for a drink and some serious sleep.

SNORE!!!

#812

both are wonderful
the blind technique sometimes the impetus of spirit;):+1:

#813

great skulpting.
i love the chalky material on the second render.

grtz p

#814

Thanks kokoro, yeah we share similar opinions on this matter.
Thanks Mealea, I don’t quite agree, the second render is much better and shows all the issues of this fast sculpting. The camera is precise and has nothing to do with the tragically wrong z camera.
Thanks PFC, but the blind technic is against my principles. Right, Picasso said once, artist should be blind, musicians should be deaf… I love picasso but… you know, he had his reasons. I trust my feelings, not so much my logic.
Thanks Patpotlood. Well, there isn’t any material on the second render. There will be when finishing it. It is only a light grey diffuse and a little smooth glossiness. A clay render. Just moving the lights, to see what goes wrong. (a lot of things go wrong here)

#815

So…
Its not just a matter of lighting and focal length?
Which render would it look like more if you sent it to a 3D printer?

How is ZBrush’s so incorrect?
I mean seriously, to me the first one looks better, I can see everything, the second one looks, well, dithered and too bright or something, like maybe the camera shutter was open too long if that makes any sense.
I know that cycles has zillions of little dots but why is that considered better?
It look almost 8 bit to me, like you converted it into a .gif file or something.

What am I missing here?

#816

Hey mealea, I didn’t pay any attention on how to render it in cycles.
You very well know that I can render whatever I wish in cycles.
My point was not to show what render looks better.
What render shows what’s really happening in sculpting, yes, this was my point.
If you go for a 3d print, yes, cycles previews it. Not BPR.
You need a nice pathtracer, with a nice GI support, a nice camera etc. There are many excellent engines around. BPR is not among them. BPR is great for some other jobs, like illustrations.

#817

But I can see all the detail in the BPR one, so I can see the sculpting better right?
In the second one areas that I can see in the first are empty white space, is that what you are after?

#818

i think michalis means it’s more realistic than bpr.
bpr is a preview renderer, hence the name, best preview renderer.
renderengines like cycles (don’t know it), mental ray, vray (i know this one particulary), keyshot, etc…
are based on real light simulation, and the travel of light rays.

grtz p

#819

Oh…
I see ok.
GRIN!
I was going to mention those too and I was sort of thinking that they would all be different as well.
That would be the case right?

#820

yes, of course
that’s the difference you see between the renders.
mainly in the shadows.

in bpr shadows, and the falling of light is somewhat simulated.
in a raytracer the path of light, and the secundairy, 3th, etc… bounces are calculated,
like in real life.

i could explain this better, but my english doesn’t allow me, :confused:

grtz p