Does BB's hair shader slow rendering down?



  • @ghostship

    Stunning render. What figure?



  • @Deecey Are you reading my mind Deecey? I was just about to ask the same question. I even like the hair as well.



  • @Miss-B

    I would say its not render but actual photography of real person, but maybe I'm on this wrong

    Her skin looks awesome and hair and flowers too looks great etc

    Hope this helps

    Thanks, Jura



  • @jura11 If it's not a photo then, well, WOW



  • @amethystpendant said in Does BB's hair shader slow rendering down?:

    @jura11 If it's not a photo then, well, WOW

    Seen few Octane or Redshift renders which you can very hardly distinguish if real or render, in previous work we are used extensively Octane or Redshift

    If its render then I'm wrong on that and props to who produced this render

    Hope this helps

    Thanks, Jura



  • @ghostship Actually, all three of my lights are already area lights, with one softbox fill light.



  • @Deecey No this is a photograph that I downloaded off the internet.



  • @glossaphile Ok can you post up an image of your light setup in a preview? Something is drastically wrong with your lights and I just have not said anything yet about it till now. My guess is they are too small or too close to your figure.



  • @ghostship said in Does BB's hair shader slow rendering down?:

    @glossaphile Ok can you post up an image of your light setup in a preview? Something is drastically wrong with your lights and I just have not said anything yet about it till now. My guess is they are too small or too close to your figure.

    Agree with this, I would think so too his or hers area lights are too small or default size at 100%,usually or normally I use size depending on size of figure etc but 500-700% works for me for figure rendering

    Thanks, Jura



  • @ghostship Do you mean "drastically wrong" as in unrealistic and clearly CGI or as in technically realistic but unlikely for a professional photo shoot? Please keep in mind that I'm not necessarily aiming for something as softly lit as your renders tend to be. My primary goal is to come as close as possible to something that could pass for a photo, even if a poorly or starkly lit one. Heck, if I could render something that looked convincingly like a spontaneous picture taken by a family on vacation, I'd be happy. Once I've clearly accomplished that, then I might turn my focus onto more closely emulating professional light setups.

    In any case, here's the arrangement. The smallest light is 50% of default size, made to fit the 3D light fixture prop to which I'd originally parented it.

    0_1525569489636_Lighting.jpg



  • @ghostship said in Does BB's hair shader slow rendering down?:

    @Deecey No this is a photograph that I downloaded off the internet.

    Ohhhhh! You know, I should've realized that since the SuperFly Render tag is missing.



  • @glossaphile said in Does BB's hair shader slow rendering down?:

    @ghostship Do you mean "drastically wrong" as in unrealistic and clearly CGI or as in technically realistic but unlikely for a professional photo shoot? Please keep in mind that I'm not necessarily aiming for something as softly lit as your renders tend to be. My primary goal is to come as close as possible to something that could pass for a photo, even if a poorly or starkly lit one. Heck, if I could render something that looked convincingly like a spontaneous picture taken by a family on vacation, I'd be happy. Once I've clearly accomplished that, then I might turn my focus onto more closely emulating professional light setups.

    In any case, here's the arrangement. The smallest light is 50% of default size, made to fit the 3D light fixture prop to which I'd originally parented it.

    0_1525569489636_Lighting.jpg

    Here is my light setup,very similar to yours but I use larger area lights

    alt text

    and render up to 45 samples and edited in PS

    alt text

    Hope this helps

    Thanks,Jura



  • @glossaphile Yes the "MiniMe" light that you are using as your main light is causing the harsh shadow and probably a source of noise. The smaller the lights the harder it is for the samples to find their way to that light source. You claim that you are not aiming for a "photo studio" look yet you have 3 point lighting? If I was going for a photo-flash look I would remove all the lights and use one light pointed directly from the camera to the model's face. If it was interior lighting as in a room with a couple of table lamps then I would only use an HDRI on the skydome. Bottom line is that your light setup is not flattering to the model.



  • @jura11 Looks fantastic but I'd ditch the hair textures with burned in highlights. It's the main thing that is killing that render.



  • Getting back to the original question, I decided to run a few tests. I took PE and Melite hair for V4 and applied the default textures, @bagginsbill's via my EZSkin pluggin and @ghostship's from above. All renders used exactly the same render settings / lights (2 area lights and a bit of illumination from the construct). I'm not interested in discussing the settings etc it was simply a test of speed
    Render Settings
    0_1525603654794_1486f81a-1e3b-4526-9f66-082f6bde2627-image.png
    Base Texture ( 16 minutes)
    0_1525603706120_Base_0030.png
    @bagginsbill (28 Minutes)
    0_1525603757229_BBEZSkin_0030.png
    @ghostship ( 17 minutes)
    0_1525603821045_GS_0030.png

    So purely on timings @bagginsbill's is quite a bit slower for the reasons we've already discussed. Is it worth the extra? If I were doing a portrait then I would say yes. I don't think I would ever use the base textures. at least not in superfly. If it were a full body shot I probably would use @ghostship's (for the colour map, I rendered just the diffuse of @bagginsbill's shader on to a large square using white as the colour and rendered at 4096x4096 with a front camera saved that and coloured it with the same colour chip I used in @bagginsbill's to try and get as close a comparison as I could.

    I theen wondered if adding subd to the hair would enhance it enough to warrant even longer render times
    @bagginsbill at Subdx2 (30 minutes)
    0_1525604227030_BBEZSkinSD2_0030.png

    @ghostship at SubDx2 ( 20 minutes)
    0_1525604286583_GSSD2_0030.png

    For the relatively small increase in time the result, in my opinion, is definitely worth it for portraits.



  • Thanks for the input, Amethyst! Ghostship, I use three-point lighting to a great extent because I think it's useful as a generic and neutral setup, especially for testing and honing face morphs. Anyway, I experimented with some softer lighting, and this is the result. For this render, all lights were at least 3x default size (and that's being conservative). This was also rendered with 8 pixel samples overall and both kinds of caustics turned on.

    0_1525625837826_Debby14.jpg

    Back to the topic at hand, I'm off to do a bit more tinkering with render settings.