3D-Daz Daz3d Art - Show Us Your DazSkill

[ArturiousDesign]

Okay, okay... I see what you're saying...

But I'm just more jealous that you can whip that up so quickly on your computer This latest one took 12 hours to render to 71%, thought I did set the quality to 5 since I knew it'd be going overnight so that's probably the massive slowdown.

View attachment 1053321

Worth it

I leave mine on default, and only go to 2-3 for 4k pics. I don't even turn on spectral unless it's 4k. This looks great tho.

 

[xer.0]

I leave mine on default, and only go to 2-3 for 4k pics. I don't even turn on spectral unless it's 4k. This looks great tho.

Thanks man.

I usually set it to 2 and render out the largest side to 2048px. Lately I've been doing 5 if I have the time to render it out. If it's at 2 it usually takes 3-4 hours for a HDRI only render.

I haven't messed with the spectral settings, what do they do?

 

[OutOfAshes]

Okay, okay... I see what you're saying...

But I'm just more jealous that you can whip that up so quickly on your computer This latest one took 12 hours to render to 71%, thought I did set the quality to 5 since I knew it'd be going overnight so that's probably the massive slowdown.

View attachment 1053321

Worth it.

Anyone have tips for using HDRI's in finite dome w/ ground and making it seem as if they aren't hovering just above the ground?

u will see no difference between qualitiy 1 and 5 trust me i tested it with quality 1 and 82 and me and others saw no difference

 

[xer.0]

u will see no difference between qualitiy 1 and 5 trust me i tested it with quality 1 and 82 and me and others saw no difference

Interesting, I should probably do an actual test at some point. I just feel like I've been getting sharper/ crisper looking renders when I've set it to 5, I don't think the setting of "5" actually does it but the longer rendering time and more iterations does.

 

[OutOfAshes]

Interesting, I should probably do an actual test at some point. I just feel like I've been getting sharper/ crisper looking renders when I've set it to 5, I don't think the setting of "5" actually does it but the longer rendering time and more iterations does.

i tested it wit the same count of iters on both quality settings and really no noticable difference there

 

[xer.0]

i tested it wit the same count of iters on both quality settings and really no noticable difference there

Figured, so probably just the fact that a higher quality means that you get longer renders, ergo more iterations.

Though the idea behind the quality with a larger sample area for the sample would result in sharper renders. So I think it really just comes down to high settings and let it cook.

 

[palumbra]

View attachment a.webm

Spoiler: explicit

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[OGDX]

what model did you use?

No clue man, this was ages ago, probably a mixture of a bunch of morphs, and I don't have the scene file anymore. I just remember that I was trying to make the face look like a bit like Barbara Palvin's.

 

[xAsurax]

 

[Yuno Gasai]

​

 

[Powerline75]

i tested it wit the same count of iters on both quality settings and really no noticable difference there

Interesting, I should probably do an actual test at some point. I just feel like I've been getting sharper/ crisper looking renders when I've set it to 5, I don't think the setting of "5" actually does it but the longer rendering time and more iterations does.

Not entirely accurate. There IS a difference, but, it's mostlty noticeable in medium/low convergence percentages.
To be more specific, a render that ended at some point between 89 and 98% convergence, will look as good, regardless of quality values, though, perhaps, in the near-maxed quality values there may be a visible difference. However, if you render the same thing twice, one on the default, and another on quality set to 5, and kill both at around a real 50% (real as in an actual 50%, with the convergence rate setting set to 100%), then the quality value makes a huge difference. As far as I can tell, quality is there to help artists kill renders as soon as the render looks good enough to publish, without needing to wait for the whole process to complete, while the default actually requires the process to complete, and, even then, if you don't move the convergence rate slider to 100%, the end result won't look so good

 

[Powerline75]

Another pinup... this time, trying to grasp the 70s Playboy centerfold vibe... enjoy!

 

[OutOfAshes]

View attachment 1053468

View attachment 1053475​

who is this ?

 

[OutOfAshes]

Not entirely accurate. There IS a difference, but, it's mostlty noticeable in medium/low convergence percentages.
To be more specific, a render that ended at some point between 89 and 98% convergence, will look as good, regardless of quality values, though, perhaps, in the near-maxed quality values there may be a visible difference. However, if you render the same thing twice, one on the default, and another on quality set to 5, and kill both at around a real 50% (real as in an actual 50%, with the convergence rate setting set to 100%), then the quality value makes a huge difference. As far as I can tell, quality is there to help artists kill renders as soon as the render looks good enough to publish, without needing to wait for the whole process to complete, while the default actually requires the process to complete, and, even then, if you don't move the convergence rate slider to 100%, the end result won't look so good

uh i didn‘t know that

thank you i will test this today

 

[xer.0]

Another pinup... this time, trying to grasp the 70s Playboy centerfold vibe... enjoy!

View attachment 1053501

Stunning. Great natural looking tits. What morphs are you using?

 

[XenoFash]

XestyModels I uploaded this a while ago, what do you think?

View attachment 1052870

She’s hot. Makeup is a bit much for me, but she is a raver after all. I’m a fan of the realistically sized penis, though I’d like to see it at a better angle.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

who is this ?

just an attempt to recreate Maja from Summer's Gone.
the second one is supposed to be Sasha but she's way off.

 

[Powerline75]

Stunning. Great natural looking tits. What morphs are you using?

I went with MDD Monet as the base bodyshape https://f95zone.to/threads/ej-body-shape-and-detail-morphs-for-genesis-8-female-s-male-s.57909/ and tweaked her a bit with EJ's body morphs https://f95zone.to/threads/ej-body-shape-and-detail-morphs-for-genesis-8-female-s-male-s.57909/

 

[Powerline75]

uh i didn‘t know that

thank you i will test this today

I cooked up a fast comparison chart.
Both renders were done with the default skydome, and the exact same shaders, both killed at 53%
Here is the default render settings version


And, here is with quality set at 5, and convergence rate set to 98%


In the first, you can easily see the noise grain, and, in some portions, it overwhelms the surface behaviour, while, in the second, the noise grain is far more subtle, and far more faded

 

[OutOfAshes]

just an attempt to recreate Maja from Summer's Gone.
the second one is supposed to be Sasha but she's way off.

looks good did you tried Bella and Nami too?