Daz [SOLVED] Weird effect with clothes

[anne O'nymous]

Having some free time for once, I decided to advance in my learning of Daz Studio.

Among other thing, I made some try with clothes, and then encountered the following weird effect

Spoiler

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

The

You must be registered to see the links

(Yeah, I know. But I'll wait to effectively use Daz before buying assets) have one mesh for many textures, the form of the panty depending of the said texture. And like the effect is only present on the part of the mesh where there's no texture, I assume that... well, I don't really know what, except that the two are surely linked.

Is it possible directly from Daz, or is it due to some external factor ( like by example the lack of normal map, or something like that ) ?
In short, how do I get rid this fuckingly weird result ?

 

[Saki_Sliz]

It looks like it isn't treaty the texture transparent areas as fully transparent. When I load similar assets into blender, this happens time to time. Usually for me I always have to fix the default shaders, so I can just simply add a corrective curve to the alpha to force the transparent parts to be fully transparent. Though I don't know why this should be an issue, it is a simple problem. if you can find the original texture data, you would just apply a similar affect to the texture, ie ever so gently boost the alpha contrast. But if these things were designed for daz, then their shouldn't be an issue, but I don't know much about how daz works in terms of renders and shading since I just move everything to blender.

 

[anne O'nymous]

It looks like it isn't treaty the texture transparent areas as fully transparent.

It was my first guess, so I edited the texture, ensured that the transparent part was transparent, edited the definition of the material, ensured that it effectively used the new textures... and I still have the same result

 

[Porcus Dev]

I've tried to replicate your problem but it works fine for me

All I can tell you is:
- If you don't want to get an error when applying the textures of "Panties for Beauty G8F 2" you must have installed "Panties for Beauty G8F"; but you already know that, because the texture you are using is from there
- If you go to "Tools Settings" and "Geometry Editor", there you can try to uncheck "abdomen", "lthigh" or "rthigh"... they don't seem to have any effect on clothing and may correct your problem.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I've tried to replicate your problem but it works fine for me

Alright... This gave me a lead to follow : if it works for you and not for me, it's something I did.

Therefore, I restored everything to the default setting, one by one, and it appear that resetting the rendering setting solve the problem. Investigating further, it's the "nominal luminance" (under "filtering"), that give this result. A value of 0 works fine (mostly because it disable the function), and every other value cause a problem ; which annoy me a lot, because the said value of 0 is far to be the best one

Edit: Therefore, if someone have another solution, I take it.

 

[Porcus Dev]

Alright... This gave me a lead to follow : if it works for you and not for me, it's something I did.

Therefore, I restored everything to the default setting, one by one, and it appear that resetting the rendering setting solve the problem. Investigating further, it's the "nominal luminance" (under "filtering"), that give this result. A value of 0 works fine (mostly because it disable the function), and every other value cause a problem ; which annoy me a lot, because the said value of 0 is far to be the best one

Edit: Therefore, if someone have another solution, I take it.

I've never changed that parameter... What effect does it have, or are you trying to achieve by altering it?

 

[anne O'nymous]

What effect does it have, or are you trying to achieve by altering it?

From what I understood, it control the global luminance (the subjective visual intensity of the brightness) of the render.

The two following image use exactly the same setting, except for the "nominal luminance". The first one is at 0, while the second one is at 5.

If you look at the eyes, you'll see that there's no fireflies on the shadow generated by the eyelashes. I know that they aren't really perceptible when the luminance is at 0. But I also know that they exist, and it annoy me. Plus it lead to more difference between two render of the exact same scene, which interfere with the way I plan do play with the images ; but this is purely personal.
And now, look at the lower lips, which is way less reflective, leading to a more natural look. If you look closely (not really visible here since I voluntarily choose a small size for the two examples), you'll see that it apply for all the head, which looks more natural because less reflective ; the second image look less like a photo took in the middle of a really hot day.

Spoiler

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

The later can surely be achieved otherwise, but just changing the luminance would affect all the objects in the scene, which is better than adjusting them all. Especially since there's no guaranty that it will effectively just affect the dazzling part and not mess with all the texture.

 

[Porcus Dev]

From what I understood, it control the global luminance (the subjective visual intensity of the brightness) of the render.

The two following image use exactly the same setting, except for the "nominal luminance". The first one is at 0, while the second one is at 5.

If you look at the eyes, you'll see that there's no fireflies on the shadow generated by the eyelashes. I know that they aren't really perceptible when the luminance is at 0. But I also know that they exist, and it annoy me. Plus it lead to more difference between two render of the exact same scene, which interfere with the way I plan do play with the images ; but this is purely personal.
And now, look at the lower lips, which is way less reflective, leading to a more natural look. If you look closely (not really visible here since I voluntarily choose a small size for the two examples), you'll see that it apply for all the head, which looks more natural because less reflective ; the second image look less like a photo took in the middle of a really hot day.

Spoiler

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

The later can surely be achieved otherwise, but just changing the luminance would affect all the objects in the scene, which is better than adjusting them all. Especially since there's no guaranty that it will effectively just affect the dazzling part and not mess with all the texture.

Yesterday I did some tests, reproduced your problem and tried to find out which parameter could be changed to solve it, but no luck... I modified every parameter on surfaces, even the hidden ones, but the result was the same.
I could check that with other clothes that problem didn't happen, so I think the problem is in the images used for base map, bump map or cutout opacity, and although I tried to make some modification in them, it didn't solve the problem either.

I didn't have time to check more things, but maybe by comparing the images that are applied on a piece of clothing that works well you can see the differences that there are... if I have time I will do more tests at night.

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

I've never changed that parameter... What effect does it have, or are you trying to achieve by altering it?

Depending on scene, a high value can also significantly reduce noise and cut rendering time by a far marging.

luminance at 0
Rendering Time: 27 minutes



luminance at 100
Rendering Time: 12 minutes

 

[anne O'nymous]

I could check that with other clothes that problem didn't happen, [...]

In a way, it also answer the problem
Like I said, I'm still learning, and it's one of the few clothes I used for the test. So, what annoyed me was more the possibility that it was something generalized, than the fact that those particular clothes were affected by it.

I didn't have time to check more things, but maybe by comparing the images that are applied on a piece of clothing that works well you can see the differences that there are...

It's one of the two things I have planed to do. The second being to see how rusty I am with working on the meshes, to make ones that would fit the texture ; which should also solve the problem. But, like said above, now that I know that it's an exception, there's no emergency at all. I know that it happen time to time, and when the time will come to start working on a game, I'll adapt, using other clothes if I encounter it again and can't easily adapt the meshes.

if I have time I will do more tests at night.

You don't have to, unless you want it for yourself. This said, if you found the answer, I'll take it with pleasure ; it can be less works than working on the meshes.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Depending on scene, a high value can also significantly reduce noise and cut rendering time by a far marging.

For the rendering time, I can't tell, I stick with really basic scenes for now ; mostly because it limit the rendering time which is better since I'm still testing a lot of things. With such basic scene, it tend to increase the rendering time, but it's probably because there's by default really few things to do.

But I totally agree for the noise reduction. It's not necessarily perceivable with the eye, but there's a real change :

Spoiler

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

 

[anne O'nymous]

Update...

I did some tests :

1. Copying the material configuration of one asset without this effect to the one with the effect. Thanks to the scripting abilities of Daz, it was relatively easy. No change.
2. Using the texture and map of an asset without this effect on the one with the effect. This using all the file of the working asset, including those absent from the bogus one, and using them where the working asset use them. No change.
3. Doing the same than previous, and copying the whole material configuration. No change.
4. Doing the opposite (the texture and map of the bogus asset in place of the one used by the working asset). No change.
5. Adapting (quickly) the texture and map of the working asset, as file of the working one. No change.

When I say "no change", it's not totally exact. The form of the weird effect changed... totally following the meshes used.

Which lead me to the conclusion that, with a nominal luminance set, this effect while happen for every assets that have a generic meshes, and change the global form of the clothes only because of the texture ; like by example an asset offering both a leotard and a couple bra/panty, simply because on the second the texture contain no information for the part covering the torso.
And it should probably also apply for assets that aren't clothes. At the difference that it's clearly visible with clothes because they are extremely close to the body and its texture, and would perhaps be less perceptible if the object is far to what appear through the not textured part of the meshes.

All this said, there's perhaps a solution other than reworking the meshes to match the texture, and I'm still open to it if someone know it.

 

[recreation]

A value of 0 works fine (mostly because it disable the function)

Which lead me to the conclusion that, with a nominal luminance set, this effect while happen for every assets that have a generic meshes

That's not really the case, a value of 0 basically tells Daz that it can use "unlimited" luminance. If you set a value, you restrain Daz from doing so. You're using very, VERY low values in your tests, I usually use a value of 10k, just to reduce noise and fasten the rendering time, and I've never had that kind of problem. Maybe it's just the low values that's causing your problem.

 

[Porcus Dev]

Update...

I did some tests :

1. Copying the material configuration of one asset without this effect to the one with the effect. Thanks to the scripting abilities of Daz, it was relatively easy. No change.
2. Using the texture and map of an asset without this effect on the one with the effect. This using all the file of the working asset, including those absent from the bogus one, and using them where the working asset use them. No change.
3. Doing the same than previous, and copying the whole material configuration. No change.
4. Doing the opposite (the texture and map of the bogus asset in place of the one used by the working asset). No change.
5. Adapting (quickly) the texture and map of the working asset, as file of the working one. No change.

When I say "no change", it's not totally exact. The form of the weird effect changed... totally following the meshes used.

Which lead me to the conclusion that, with a nominal luminance set, this effect while happen for every assets that have a generic meshes, and change the global form of the clothes only because of the texture ; like by example an asset offering both a leotard and a couple bra/panty, simply because on the second the texture contain no information for the part covering the torso.
And it should probably also apply for assets that aren't clothes. At the difference that it's clearly visible with clothes because they are extremely close to the body and its texture, and would perhaps be less perceptible if the object is far to what appear through the not textured part of the meshes.

All this said, there's perhaps a solution other than reworking the meshes to match the texture, and I'm still open to it if someone know it.

I found the solution... although I don't think it's good, lol

It seems that when altering "nominal luminance" the parameters in "tone mapping" affect the image (well, in some cases), if you don't want to have problems with nominal luminance values different from 0 you can deactivate tone mapping, but of course, then the rendering light control changes completely, I had to put a value of "Environment Intensity" to 0.0005 to see some result, without that value so low the image was almost completely white

If you want to do a quick test:
- Nominal luminance: 10
- Tone mapping: OFF
- Dome and Scene, Environment intensity: 0.0005

 

[Porcus Dev]

That's not really the case, a value of 0 basically tells Daz that it can use "unlimited" luminance. If you set a value, you restrain Daz from doing so. You're using very, VERY low values in your tests, I usually use a value of 10k, just to reduce noise and fasten the rendering time, and I've never had that kind of problem. Maybe it's just the low values that's causing your problem.

Indeed, the higher the value minus the unwanted effect on the clothing.

 

[anne O'nymous]

You're using very, VERY low values in your tests, I usually use a value of 10k, [...]

Note to self: When you try something with Daz, don't hesitate to go wild

It bother me a little, because of some too unnatural (from my point of view) reflections, but I can live with it.

 

[Porcus Dev]

Note to self: When you try something with Daz, don't hesitate to go wild

It bother me a little, because of some too unnatural (from my point of view) reflections, but I can live with it.

You can change the glossy or shiny effect in the surface parameters, but obviously you have to change them in every character and every body part you want, it requires more work than just changing nominal luminance

 

[anne O'nymous]

You can change the glossy or shiny effect in the surface parameters, but obviously you have to change them in every character and every body part you want, it requires more work than just changing nominal luminance

You're underestimate how lazy I can be... I didn't change the nominal luminance, it's a script that do it for me It's part of a more global script that create a scene for each camera defined. Therefore, I just need to change this/that, run the script, batch render the scenes, and then I can judge the result from many angles.
I'm sure that I can do the same for those properties. But it will wait. Now that I solved my problem with the clothes and learned more about the said nominal luminance, I'll just forget about this until I reach the point where I'll effectively works on the quality of the rendering.

Thanks again for your help.

 

[Porcus Dev]

Thanks again for your help.

You're kidding, right?

Take one from the ones I owe you, lol