CREATE YOUR AI CUM SLUT ON CANDY.AI TRY FOR FREE
x

Daz Harsh criticism pls

noping123

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Jun 24, 2021
1,738
2,776
Why do you think there's something wrong with your renders? Because they don't look right.
I'm not going to respond to 90% of what you said, because you made some decent points. I will respond to this in particular though:

I don't. I personally, don't see anything wrong with them. In fact, to me, they look decent enough. (Not good, and I'd prefer much higher levels of details, but overall, I don't see anything actually wrong with any of them). That's the point of this thread - to ask other people to try and pick it apart, because to me they look fine. Maybe they DO look fine, or maybe I just do not have an eye for that sort of thing - I don't know the answer to that, hence the thread. But if someone else did those renders and asked my opinion? I'd say "A bit lacking in some fine details, and some stuff looks a little smoother than it maybe should, but otherwise decent". And since I know why things look smoother (due to CPU renderering, I have a massive over-reliance on stuff like denoisers to keep render time down, and they tend to smooth things out and erase some details I'd prefer to keep, but I'm not about to do 20 hr renders either).

For the record i've done nothing since but read up on that stuff and experiment, and try stuff. I'm currently toying around with animation, just cause I want to learn that too, but a lot of that stuff has come up along with it. So it's not like I'm ignoring the advice I'm getting here, but I did want to point out the fact that my personal opinion is "They're fine".
 

Deleted member 1121028

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2018
1,716
3,308
Look, about the whole 3-point thing. I've been working on my own game now for almost 6 months now, and I will say this about it, you don't need it. However, you need to understand why it is to CONSISTENTLY create good renders. I could work on one poster render for days to fine-tune it, but that's impractical for a VN. This is why I'll keep telling people to read up on photography and cinematography standards. This isn't just an artistic thing, it's for practical reasons too. The better handle you have on it, the fast and more efficiently you can render good images. This isn't like drawing where you need months if not years of practice to be good at it. It takes a few hours of reading and watching, and then a couple of practical applications to see the results.

Like I said before, you don't even need three lights, two is plenty enough. Think of the time you save from having to set up three lights vs. two over hundreds if not thousands of renders. But to actually make good use out of just two lights takes a little bit of reading up on how lighting works. In a VN, a scene would involve different camera angles, so if you want the lighting to make sense with the environment for every angle, it needs to be planned out and set up properly. How could one do that if they don't even know what setting up lighting even means?

Also, most people use premade environments anyway, they should all come with sufficient lighting for themselves, it only takes another light to expose the subject.

Now about the artistic vs. technical thing. I get it, I don't consider myself an artist either, but my point is about quality and efficiency, not anything artistic. Why do you think there's something wrong with your renders? Because they don't look right. And they don't look right not because you didn't tweak certain settings, or you don't know DAZ has this thing you need to use, etc. In my honest opinion, it is because it has no direction, or purpose if that's the word that makes more sense. Like your threesome render from before, if your goal for the render is to make sure everything is brightly lid, then jobs done, it is brightly lid. What else is there to say? The two new images are the same idea. Yes, the second one is faster, and slightly better because brightness makes more sense for the scene, so if that was your goal, you did it. I would say keep trying and you'll get better at the whole thing. But if you want to render something that looks right, don't you need to define what is right first? And if you don't know what is right, isn't that the crux of the problem?

Using my own experience as an example. I came into this knowing absolutely nothing about DAZ or 3D art in general. I never studied photography, I don't ever take photos on my phone, it's just wasn't me. Like you, I just wanted to tell my stories and I ended up choosing VN as the medium. And not being an artist, I chose DAZ because that's the only feasible way I could see myself being able to produce the visuals I'll need. I started off by setting goals for myself, I actually maintain a dev journal here, from day 1 to preset. For the first two months, it was all about learning. I had a goal for each day or week, and with a goal, I could see the puzzle I need to solve, then I just look up how to solve them.

Maybe pick a scene in one of your stories, and just try to render one shot of it. Like a POV shot of a character talking in a cafe or something, whatever you think fits with your story. As the writer, you'll see what's wrong with it, and you'll have more concrete obstacles to overcome. For example, when you try to render your character in the cafe, you'll notice the renders ended up very noisy despite hours of rendering and with 98%+ convergence. That's a problem to solve. Or when put your character into the scene, you'll notice the cafe's ceiling lights aren't good for the camera angle, because they're right above the character's head. That's another problem to solve. Keep solving these problems and your renders will look right soon enough.
I whish I could like more than once, it's right on the money :unsure:.
 

noping123

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Jun 24, 2021
1,738
2,776
No_name, I could kiss you on the mouth.

I peeked at your thread, and while I didn't use anything from it (except the iray camera. idk how much it helps, but we'll see), something about the way you explained everything made all the stuff I've read so far "click".

End result (ignore almost everything about it, im not even half done with this yet, I just did a quick render to test out stuff), in 10 min (of cpu rendering), I got this. (straight from daz, lots of tiny edits I need to make, and I'd give it a bit more than 10 minutes but not the point).

backup.png

#1 - that same level of quality(we're talking image quality here, noise and stuff like that) would have taken 45-50 min before. (And between 1 and 2.5 hrs for decent quality).

#2 - I can now achieve a lighting effect I was struggling to get without a lot of post-work.

Now I can go back to work on fixing that (and all the other stuff I'm working on) without worrying about 30 year renders anymore.
 

Deleted member 1121028

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2018
1,716
3,308
No_name, I could kiss you on the mouth.

I peeked at your thread, and while I didn't use anything from it (except the iray camera. idk how much it helps, but we'll see), something about the way you explained everything made all the stuff I've read so far "click".

End result (ignore almost everything about it, im not even half done with this yet, I just did a quick render to test out stuff), in 10 min (of cpu rendering), I got this. (straight from daz, lots of tiny edits I need to make, and I'd give it a bit more than 10 minutes but not the point).

View attachment 1378262

#1 - that same level of quality(we're talking image quality here, noise and stuff like that) would have taken 45-50 min before. (And between 1 and 2.5 hrs for decent quality).

#2 - I can now achieve a lighting effect I was struggling to get without a lot of post-work.

Now I can go back to work on fixing that (and all the other stuff I'm working on) without worrying about 30 year renders anymore.
Ay! (no homo).

Yeah Iray cam are already quite mandatory to make render with Iray at a correct rate. For people on CPU rendering it's an absolute necessity imho.
 

noping123

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Jun 24, 2021
1,738
2,776
So. I got my hands on an actual GPU, which means no more cpu rendering. This is a blessing and a curse. On the plus side, I can actually render at decent speeds, AND preview. Downside it makes me much more aware of my shortcomings.

Yesterday while fooling around with stuff I did these images. Some of them I'm happy with how they came out - in particular though, #1,2, and #9 I'm really unhappy with, specifically the lighting. No matter how I tried I could not manage to get it right. I messed around with different sources of lighting and trying different things for about 7 or 8 hours and couldn't "fix" the problems I saw. Every now and then I'd take a break, go read up on stuff, try something new, still no good. The rest of them I'm either happy with or I know how to fix the issues, but those 3 I just cannot figure out.

The issue I had with them for the record: #1,and #2: too bright, seems to give off a "cartoony" look especially on the guy. At first the skin shaders were all wrong, I went back and fixed that but it didn't help. I turned down the enviromental light which helped, but turning it down too much resulted in things being too dark. I messed around with adding additional light sources in other places (The version below has the main hdri providing sunlight, and 1 additional light slightly above and off to the right). I tried different types of lights at about 100 different angles, tried different camera angles, nothing seemed to help, so I'm lost there.

The last one, was always too dark. In the previous ones the scene was dark but I used various lighting sources to "fix" it - leave it dark, but still illuminated in a way I was happy with. That one, nothing I tried worked. In the end I removed a back wall not in the camera view, which let a bunch of the HDRI lighting in, but I was most definitely not happy with that solution but again, like with the first one, I tried different approaches forever and couldn't come up with anything decent. I did have one rather hilarious approach which involved a focused spotlight and some glow in the dark body parts.

All in all I'm pretty happy with my progress so far. Not perfect, far from it, but I definitely feel better about things than when I started. I also have a bunch of things I'm not sharing because I'm actually totally content with how they came out - this was the only series that had parts I couldn't figure out how to fix.

streetpull.png streetpull2.png streetpull4.png streetblow.png streetblow2.png streetblow3.png streetblow4.png strip.png screw.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: La'Zaa

MidnightArrow

Active Member
Aug 22, 2021
500
453
Some issues I see:

#1 and #2 the camera is way too high. Imagine a real life film camera, it's on a tripod lightly lower than eye height and the cameraman has to bend over to look through the viewfinder. But this one is way overhead for no real reason, but not so overhead that there's any artistic effect. It just looks weird. Like the cameraman is holding the camera over his head, John Cusack with a boombox style.

The cobblestones abruptly stopping looks incredibly fake but I don't know if you're worried about texturing at this point or just lighting.

Since the street behind them looks very fake you should probably use more depth of field to hide how bad it looks.

Instead of using the "main HDRI" use Sun-Sky instead, it usually looks better. Setting the Sun-Sky option in Render Settings will disable all your scene lights but you can set it to Dome & Scene and then click the thumbnail for the HDRI to remove it. That'll put it to Sun-Sky but keep your scene lights working. After you have Sun-Sky add a spotlight or two to put some extra light on your figures, like the "bounce card" film crews use when shooting outside.

If you modeled the buildings yourself you should put more beveling on the edges, they look way too sharp. I'd also recommend putting some grunge on your textures especially near the bottom where they meet the ground.
 

noping123

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Jun 24, 2021
1,738
2,776
Since the street behind them looks very fake you should probably use more depth of field to hide how bad it looks.
Its just a predesigned set I used so I had something. I just wanted a street and an alley, so I used whatever was available quickly. If this was being done for show or for production I'd be more careful about that stuff, but for now not too worried about that or anything regarding the set (I did make a bunch of edits to reduce massive amounts of glare, but besides that) since it was just "something" for now.

Instead of using the "main HDRI" use Sun-Sky instead, it usually looks better. Setting the Sun-Sky option in Render Settings will disable all your scene lights but you can set it to Dome & Scene and then click the thumbnail for the HDRI to remove it. That'll put it to Sun-Sky but keep your scene lights working. After you have Sun-Sky add a spotlight or two to put some extra light on your figures, like the "bounce card" film crews use when shooting outside.
I tried that. It didn't work. In fact, 3+ all use sun/sky instead of the hdri. So I went back to 1/2 later, and tried to redo it with that, but it still didnt look right at all. Different, but not right......

And now I realize the rest of what you said. I did NOT know you could do that to enable lights in sun/sky. I tried for a short bit to get it working couldn't figure it out, and moved on to something else. That might help. My biggest issue with sun/sky was that I was in a position where I was needing to rely on lots of primitives as light sources, which I managed to get decent, but it has it's limitations. Or I do, or both.


#1 and #2 the camera is way too high. Imagine a real life film camera, it's on a tripod lightly lower than eye height and the cameraman has to bend over to look through the viewfinder. But this one is way overhead for no real reason, but not so overhead that there's any artistic effect. It just looks weird

Ok this visual made me laugh. It's not as high as you think (It's level with about the top of the male characters head). There was a reason I had it there, it wasn't arbitrary, but upon looking at the actual picture, I failed at my objective anyway. This is actually the 2nd version of that one, in the first version the reason for the high angle makes more sense, but I forgot I had to go back and fix a bunch of stuff and changed a bunch cause there were things obviously wrong with it - I must have messed other stuff up and not noticed it. (Mostly cause I had been up 25 hrs at that point).

THAT SAID - I don't think this is something I'd ever consider or care about. If ppl really think it "looks weird" I might re-consider, but while yea there's a camera there, I'm not looking at this like "Camera-man holding camera recording everything". I'm looking at it more like "this stuff is happening somewhere and here, you can see some of it". In other words, less like something being filmed, more like a window into another life. The entire concept of a "Camera man" literally never entered my head until you said it, because I'm just not approaching it from that POV. Which in some ways may lend to some things looking odd I guess, but otoh it means I'm not overly concerned about stuff like "Oh thats a weird angle".
 

MidnightArrow

Active Member
Aug 22, 2021
500
453
Its just a predesigned set I used so I had something. I just wanted a street and an alley, so I used whatever was available quickly. If this was being done for show or for production I'd be more careful about that stuff, but for now not too worried about that or anything regarding the set (I did make a bunch of edits to reduce massive amounts of glare, but besides that) since it was just "something" for now.
Stonemason on the Daz Shop has a set called Urban Sprawl 3. It's what I always use whenever I need a big city set. I highly recommend picking it up if you get a chance.

My biggest issue with sun/sky was that I was in a position where I was needing to rely on lots of primitives as light sources, which I managed to get decent, but it has it's limitations. Or I do, or both.
Instead of primitives I recommend using point lights with the geometry as spheres or spotlights with the geometry as rectangles. It's much cleaner than messing with light from the Uber shader.

There's also the tonemapper which helps make your scenes look right though it takes some time to learn what all it's features do.

THAT SAID - I don't think this is something I'd ever consider or care about. If ppl really think it "looks weird" I might re-consider, but while yea there's a camera there, I'm not looking at this like "Camera-man holding camera recording everything". I'm looking at it more like "this stuff is happening somewhere and here, you can see some of it". In other words, less like something being filmed, more like a window into another life. The entire concept of a "Camera man" literally never entered my head until you said it, because I'm just not approaching it from that POV. Which in some ways may lend to some things looking odd I guess, but otoh it means I'm not overly concerned about stuff like "Oh thats a weird angle".
After 150 years of photography people have gotten ingrained with what makes images look real, and camera positioning is one of those things. Iray's supposed to be a photorealistic renderer but if you go against what people expect to see then something will always look a bit "off". You're not required to worry about "the cameraman" but I recommend it.
 
Last edited: