3D-Daz Daz3d Art - Show Us Your DazSkill

5.00 star(s) 12 Votes
Discussion Reviews (12)
M

Meh1234567890

Newbie
Mar 22, 2020
35
222
Trying to play with lighting on an image. Also trying to do a few tricks to make a render more realistic.

Question though? So, I rendered this image as a 3840x3840 .png and I used Gimp to convert it so a 1920x1920 .jpg. I heard someone on youtube say to increase realism you should render really big if you have good textures and then shrink the image. Is that true? I can't tell a massive difference, but could some of the veterans let me know if that trick works? Does GIMP work to that or do I need a different program?

The guy also said rendering as a PNG first is better. Is it better to render as a PNG then convert to JPG? Should I leave them as PNGs?
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • I just jizzed my pants
Reactions: mrbowie, whatever9269010, Captain Bipto and 10 others
DitaVonTease

DitaVonTease

Active Member
Jul 25, 2021
582
1,189
Meh1234567890 said:
Trying to play with lighting on an image. Also trying to do a few tricks to make a render more realistic.

Question though? So, I rendered this image as a 3840x3840 .png and I used Gimp to convert it so a 1920x1920 .jpg. I heard someone on youtube say to increase realism you should render really big if you have good textures and then shrink the image. Is that true? I can't tell a massive difference, but could some of the veterans let me know if that trick works? Does GIMP work to that or do I need a different program?

The guy also said rendering as a PNG first is better. Is it better to render as a PNG then convert to JPG? Should I leave them as PNGs?
Click to expand...


I leave them as .png's, but use 'Light Image Resizer 6', too bring the size down to post here. The only way to tell if you've got it right is to blow up the image to 'life size', or up to 500% or more if you can, it should still be as detailed as you made it.
 
Techn0magier

Techn0magier

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2017
1,190
4,216
Meh1234567890 said:
Trying to play with lighting on an image. Also trying to do a few tricks to make a render more realistic.

Question though? So, I rendered this image as a 3840x3840 .png and I used Gimp to convert it so a 1920x1920 .jpg. I heard someone on youtube say to increase realism you should render really big if you have good textures and then shrink the image. Is that true? I can't tell a massive difference, but could some of the veterans let me know if that trick works? Does GIMP work to that or do I need a different program?

The guy also said rendering as a PNG first is better. Is it better to render as a PNG then convert to JPG? Should I leave them as PNGs?
Click to expand...
That person was not wrong per see. But it is not really true if you don't know why and for what purpose. Many artists do photorealistic work directly on smaller sizes, b/c they are aiming for specific publications. For example, Instagram has a very specific format and ratio to show images, mobile devices are so small that literally, everything appears sharp on them but they can't handle mall details, prints have an additional printing resolution to deal with etc pp.
As a rule of thumb, JPEGs are for work you want to promote on mobile devices but sell otherwise. PNGs are for everything else on the internet. If you want to do prints PNG can work but personally, I recommend using TIF, less hassle if you work with tools like Rawtherapee and the companies around my area prefer TIF to do the printing. Image resolution opens a big can of worms and before you tackle that you should do what leads to the result you are satisfied with.

If you want a quick and dirty rule of thumb to deal with the early stages of that problem: Think only, what is the way you want your work to be seen. On Prints? On mobile devices via a specific app? On the web? Look at other images published there and adjust accordingly from a master file that has as many details and options as possible. (PNG/TIF)
 
D

drapak12

Member
Jul 7, 2018
138
303
Techn0magier said:
intriguing, tell me more.
Click to expand...
Some correctives jmc works well with basic figure but deform geografts. Worst effects are visible when you pose figure with "Golden Palace". I could not fix it. I tried default genitalia and NGV8.
When you pose figure with attached geograft bend thights and show hidden properties. Select genitalia and choose currently used morphs. Try to set to 0 jmc_thigh*. ThighFwd_57 always helps other thigh correctors sometimes - depend of pose and figure shape.
You can fix it pemanently. Find pJCMThighFwd_57 in folder data\DAZ 3D\Genesis 8\Female\Morphs\DAZ 3D\Base Correctives, edit file in text editor, change "auto_follow" : true on "auto_follow": false. File must be decompressed with zip before editing.
It works well with genitalia, but can cause pokethru or weird effects with some clothes.
 
  • Like
  • Red Heart
Reactions: drconfused, Night Hacker, Newtonian Wafflestomp and 1 other person
bogumil

bogumil

Member
May 24, 2018
159
539
Meh1234567890 said:
Trying to play with lighting on an image. Also trying to do a few tricks to make a render more realistic.

Question though? So, I rendered this image as a 3840x3840 .png and I used Gimp to convert it so a 1920x1920 .jpg. I heard someone on youtube say to increase realism you should render really big if you have good textures and then shrink the image. Is that true? I can't tell a massive difference, but could some of the veterans let me know if that trick works? Does GIMP work to that or do I need a different program?

The guy also said rendering as a PNG first is better. Is it better to render as a PNG then convert to JPG? Should I leave them as PNGs?
Click to expand...
I understand it that the sizes of textures on genesis figures is a key here. 3840x3840 render resolution has no sense if basic skin of the model is mediocre ( for example default genesis 8 figures maps) For me 1920 x1080 works fine as long I stay with default figures. Png has no metadataloss so its good for working with( for example allow working with layers and transparency ). Jpeg files should be used only for final showing of work ( they lose a lot of data and are crappy with gimp but their weight is blessing )

For compressing to jpeg you can use Gimp but they are faster and simpler programms there. For example I recommend you Riot
You must be registered to see the links

You can resize and compress many pictures at one moment! There is also a good number of important settings as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meh1234567890 and Techn0magier
M

Meh1234567890

Newbie
Mar 22, 2020
35
222
bogumil said:
I understand it that the sizes of textures on genesis figures is a key here. 3840x3840 render resolution has no sense if basic skin of the model is mediocre ( for example default genesis 8 figures maps) For me 1920 x1080 works fine as long I stay with default figures. Png has no metadataloss so its good for working with( for example allow working with layers and transparency ). Jpeg files should be used only for final showing of work ( they lose a lot of data and are crappy with gimp but their weight is blessing )

For compressing to jpeg you can use Gimp but they are faster and simpler programms there. For example I recommend you Riot
You must be registered to see the links

You can resize and compress many pictures at one moment! There is also a good number of important settings as well.
Click to expand...
Ok so rendering as PNG is the best way then, and then converting to jpg for the final image to upload. Most Gen 8/8.1 figures, excluding the base figure, tend to have 4096x4096 textures right? So that would mean rendering high resolution would make a difference. The next question would be... would it just be better to keep the ultra-resolution of 3840x3840 or does having that high resolution just make editing easier? I could see how compacting down would allow a number of small editing errors to be "forgiven" while still having the look of a really HD render?

Def gonna give that RIOT a try then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
5.00 star(s) 12 Votes