Crevice by Carl
ronviers
 |
Crevice by Carl http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4734.html  How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 12:58 am | ||||
| Kraellin |
pretty cool there, carl. glad to see someone doing some good, rough rock. Ya can't sell art to artists!
Craig |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 1:00 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
It's perfect.  How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 1:00 am | ||||
Carl
 |
Thanks, its a but slow bat I've got a version that takes over 4 minutes that Looks pretty real but wouldn't Of got pass the ff render police  I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 1:41 am | ||||
garbanzo
 |
you are more than welcome to share the slow version here on the forums |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 2:08 am | ||||
| Kraellin |
yup, i agree with garbanzo. cant submit, post here.
oh, and vlad said the cutoff time on a filter rendering is 15 minutes. after that it gets rejected. Ya can't sell art to artists!
Craig |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 1:17 pm | ||||
| KGtheway2B |
Hello there again Carl!
You've improved so much so quickly! Your past three textures are fantastic. If I may, I'd love to make a few more suggestions just for simplicity's sake. This time it's not regarding the normal map but instead all of the other maps you have included. I'm guessing that this texture is supposed to be rock and not metallic based so in my opinion I would look at removing all of the following maps and seeing if there is any quantifiable difference in looks. SpecStrength- this map defines how quantifiably shiny the surface is, it's as if you are telling the software: "here on the map where it is white the surface is shiny, where it is dark it's not reflective at all." Since we're talking about rock here its questionable whether there is that much need to specify the amount of shininess, perhaps just a global amount could accomplish the same task suitably. SpecExponent- this map defines how sharp the reflection is, the darker the area the more spread out the reflection would be, the whiter the area, the tighter-together the reflection will be. Usually you see this map on very important things such as characters faces or bodies, a rock face usually wouldn't need or dictate that much control. MetallicMap- I actually don't know what this is but it sounds like its something made specifically for metal, since rock =/= metal, I don't think it has a place. Here is a good diagram to talk about the first two: 
I'm not sure if the removal of these will make a difference at all regarding render time. Of course if there is no difference then I obviously have less of an argument. Personally I would not use all of the maps if using the texture, and would actually feel less comfortable using the texture for fear that what I put in-game wouldn't match the look found here in FF. I won't be offended if you decide to keep them, I just hope that you at least learned something that you might not have known, perhaps in the future you can be deliberate with how you use these powerful additional maps. |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 2:32 pm | ||||
| jffe |
Just so that I *might* learn something ha-ha, about those other maps, SpecStrength/SpecExponent/MetallicMap, how does FF decide whether those are relevant or included ? Is that just if a component is fed into them instead of a control, or if no component or control is fed in and they are constant then those maps don't apply ?
jffe Filter Forger |
|||
| Posted: November 19, 2007 4:05 pm | ||||
|
garbanzo
|
KGtheway2B, i think you are assuming we have more control over these maps than we really do.
we (filter makers) really don't have specific control over what these maps look like, let alone whether or not they are used in a filter. the approach FF takes is one of a user friendly, intuitive interface which outputs complex maps automatically. for most users (including me) these maps don't mean a thing, but there are people who use them in 3D apps, but they naturally know what they do and how to make them work. |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 12:34 am | ||||
Sphinx.
 |
just add a note:
..and following they have the choice to use them or not
KGtheway2B, I think you are being too verbose here.. what about wet rocks or rocks in more tropical environments? I see something that looks like moss in the lead preset.. that stuff doesn't grow without water  |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 3:20 am | ||||
|
Carl
|
Excellent KG I'll have a look at those. they do effect the look but maybe it's a bit of fiddling to avoid using the other maps
Ps bullet holes still in progress had a few problem to Solve to got to work property
We do have total control over these maps, in the final result component what ever you feed into the inputs gives you the different maps such as Surface Colour = Diffuse Map , Height = Bump Map , Height = Normal Map , Reflectivity = Specular Strength Map , Reflection Blur = Specular Exponent Map , Metallic = Metallic Map . If you don't input into any these you simply won't get the corresponding map in the filter or library and by controlling these can drastically effect the appearance of the filter. I've been finding out about them to improve my filter to be what a 3d artist requires - wants and doesn't want - KG has been invaluable with his generous donation of time and wisdom I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 4:17 am | ||||
|
Carl
|
By not using certain maps won't that change the appearance of the out come or is it that the Diffuse, Bump and Normal map are essential and the others are optional for the 3d artist ? I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 4:48 am | ||||
|
Sphinx.
|
well it will change the result, but what I mean is that if you don't want a shiny look, simply don't use specualar maps .. | |||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 5:12 am | ||||
|
Carl
|
Ok then, that make sense - not being a 3d artist any thoughts are appreciated I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 5:26 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
I have to agree with KGtheway2B on this one. I unplugged all but the bump and the render time was reduced by about a third. I could effectively replace the maps just by increasing the brightness inside the ball.
They are often not enough. Here are just some of the maps used by Maya to shade an object - there are many more. Transparency Ambient color Incandescence Translucence Translucence depth Translucence focus Specular color Reflected color Irradiance Irradiance color Refractive index Surface thickness Which ones are used just depend on how you want it to look. The cameras used to *view* the object also have maps. How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 5:33 am | ||||
|
Carl
|
That's interesting and begs the question should ff have or need these other map to be comprehensively useful to 3d applications ? I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 5:39 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
FF has charted a very careful path between being simple and useful. Personally I wish it had more maps but I don't blame them for building the way they have.
How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 5:44 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
I spoke too soon. There seems to me to be too much difference without the maps. I placed them side by side and a lot of detail is lost - which you probably knew already. How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 5:47 am | ||||
|
Carl
|
It's hard, one trades time for quality often [ or maybe it's bad design LOL ] Anti aliasing set at 65 can get amazing results I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 6:11 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
I didn't think of that - good idea. I always forget about anti-aliasing. How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 6:23 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
Just to make things more concrete; here is a cap from Maya showing the attribute editor with a lambert shader. Notice the checkerboard at the red arrow. This is a map input, equivalent to the green boxes used in FF, where either a procedural or a bitmap can be plugged in. How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 8:08 am | ||||
|
ronviers
|
If you click on one of those checkerboards you get this screen where the red arrow is pointing to a file input. This is where you would load one of FF's maps. This is how FF plugs into Maya. How do I look? You look ready... [Kill Bill] |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 8:10 am | ||||
| Kraellin |
this is a good discussion and one long over-due. i want to thank you, KG, for helping me to understand these maps better. i'm already making better use of these.
one thing i had never noticed is that if you plug a control slider into 'reflectivity', 'reflective blur', or 'metallic' you simply get a global increase across every pixel... not very useful, in most cases. but, if you plug a mapped component into any of these, boy, does that do something! you are now mapping those inputs with a variety of values and not just globally adding a value across the boards. odd that i had never seen this before, but oh well, learn as you go. it's odd, really, i had known this about the height map but had never really looked at the other inputs that way on the 'results' component. i'm now getting much more dynamic images as a result! so, thanks, guys and especially KG! Ya can't sell art to artists!
Craig |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 1:58 pm | ||||
|
Carl
|
It definitely can greatly enhance a filter but it does add to render times. I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 20, 2007 11:58 pm | ||||
|
Carl
|
Ron I'll be interested in seeing your use of ff textures I'm going to live forever or die trying
........Carl |
|||
| Posted: November 21, 2007 12:00 am | ||||