Could we have an objective thread about hair/fur rendering?
How does Disney achieve this level of realism and detail (pic related, upcoming Disney movie)? What software do they use?
Is it okay to fake hair/fur by using onion style texture planes to safe rendering time or is this an absolute no go now?
I find it hard to justify 5 hours of rendering with physically correct hair particle systems while the same render without any particle system fur in it would take 10minutes.
> I find it hard to justify 5 hours of rendering
lel, a single frame in an animated feature would probably take thousands of hours to render on your home rig, disney probably writes their own software to generate fur/hair per production requirements, they're rendering with Hyperion these days i think, which is also in house
obviously the techniques you use are dependent on the application, it's "ok" to do anything you want as long as the client is happy, how is that even a real question?
I just wonder about the current climate, for example if people automatically get hair loss and diarrhea when they recognize fake fur/hair on renders instead of state of the art particle usage.
I know it's still "ok" for games but just wondering about still renders.
No they really don't. It's dependent on the application and the look you're going for. I'm guessing from your question that you're asking about making pieces for your portfolio? Make shit that's aesthetically pleasing and shows off your talents. Nobody is gonna change their opinion about whether they hire you or not if your otherwise good looking character uses poly/transparency hair unless you're applying to be a hair system specialist.
Okay, that answered my question.
Yes, for my portfolio and some design a friend wanted to see as 3D character.
I try to make it not obvious but wasn't sure if it's something that screams something negative about one's 3D artwork.
according to the pixar exhibit at the boston science museum, inside out took 30 something hours pr frame on average
They use Xgen. Autodesk bought it and Maya as of 2014 has it.
Super easy to use, but a pain in the ass to render on the farm with any sort of dynamic collision.
30 hours on your home rig right?
It's just bullshit numbers they pull out of their ass. They say that Toy Story 4 is taking them 300 years to render with a straight face,
they arnt lying. they are talking about if they had 1 render node do all the rendering. when you add up all of the time that all of their render nodes took it was probably close to 300 years
>They say that Toy Story 4 is taking them 300 years to render with a straight face
Total render time you dingus
If you had 300 renderers running in the render farm, it'd that a year each
600 running, 6 months each
1200 running, 3 months each
How stupid do you have to be to think that Pixar are fucking time travellers
this zorryn guy from FA mentions full body furred characters rendering at 3min per frame... it's C4D tho....
I think I remember having him seen posting his rig specs and I think it was quite some expensive shit.
Combined with how efficient C4D usually works and his sub HD renders I guess 3 minutes are possible even with full body fur.
i dont think you know how any of what you just referenced works
C4D's hair engine is a little outdated, but fast. The interaction with light and selfshadow leaves much to be desired.
But as the other poster mentioned, the rendertime for these characters is around 2,5min on a 4Ghz 6core i7 with 32GB RAM.
I usually render 2million physical hairs per character.
Thanks for mentioning my stuff here inspite of serious furry content :P
Looking forward to disny bunny waifo movie though.
Right into the uncanny valley
I actually really like your artwork.
>a 4Ghz 6core i7 with 32GB RAM
>tfw 3.3GHz i3 with 8GB and a 750Ti
Welp, at least it's still sufficient to model/render to a certain extent and makes it possible for me to learn things about 3D and I'm thankful for that.
I really wanna see what you can do with with realtime model.
You should try throwing something into UE4.
not surprising, it lacks a lot of detail, and isn't a close up.
Not that it looks bad, but it would never pass as photo real to be used against a live action plate.
>throw it into unreal
You could always do the onion texture trick to achieve quick real time fur.
>Doesn't know about Nvidia Hairworks
>Using AMD <%19 market share trash hardware
>implying Hairworks is available
>implying it is available for UE
>implying Nvoidia doesn't just continue its dick waving without delivering
>clearly a 3D pleb who doesn't keep up with the news
A fork of it has been available for Unreal since early this year. Even that shitty kid who puts ripped models of Mario into Unreal and gets into the news for it has used Hairworks in his videos.
>only for Maya and 3dsMax
Into the trash it goes
>literally every game console running AMD hardware
kill yourself for being this out of the loop, kid. nvidia is as relevant as beiber.
>Making games for consoles
>AMD has less than 18% PC market share
kill yourself console pleb
>not using Maya or Max
Why would you intentionally cripple yourself like that?
Not him, but 3D software is massively overpriced, having one is financially crippling enough.
Free blender lad
>What is, free Educational edition
>What is, MayaLT.
>30$ a month
that's not even the definite maya version and your'e essentially renting a toy version of maya, that's robbery
It has everything from Maya that you need for gamedev, and it's only $240 a year. It's an extremely streamline gamdev sweet that far outmatches Blender's ease of use.
People recognizing that a model is "off" is nothing new or some kind of "current climate", humans have an innate sense of how something should look, even though they may not be able to say "The muscle attachments to that human female's hyoid bone like uncharacteristically prominent" (though they MIGHT say "Her neck looks weird"), they can still recognize that something is off; that's just the nature of Uncanny Valley.
I fucking love your work Zorryn, although I'm not a fan of your world building / "lore" (a society that could mass produce genetically engineered humanoid things wouldn't use them for labor, would have a hard time with ethics of "using" them for anything, and would have needs and interests that are incomprehensible to us given the ramifications of such total control over biology) but that's a very small complaint
suite, not sweet.
I'm not the guy you're replying to, BTW, just some grammar Nazi asshole.
>ease of use
luckily i got used to blender and don't have to pay the pigs over at autodesk
Thanks! That is actually more feedback, than I get from FA or DA - thanks for the critique!
Are the hair physics in Blender actually good for anything?
Too slow if you mean collisions. For fur I think they are pretty decent.
Okay, thank you.
>tfw you never get fur done correctly
>tfw it looks shit and also takes way too long to render
Something I did for school.
Maya and Vray
Fur instanced and groomed with Yeti.
rendering was about 15 minutes per frame.
no animation or simulation. They were supposed to look like stuffed animals at a museum.
Too much clumping. Not enough detail in the hair, if you didn't, hair needs to be rendered with GI set to lc as secondary and brute force as main. Its mostly the mom's face that ends up looking like mush.
I'd lift the blacks on the horns / nose / mouth. Also looks like you put noise over the whole image, not just the cg elements to match the plate. Also light wrap.
did you really need school for this? LOL. Looks like something you'd find in a Digital Tutors tutorial
Fur, like everything in Blender, does not work well "out of the box"
You have to configure it and learn what everything does and that means watching videos and reading the documentation
If you try to just move sliders around or change values in a text box, you'll probably end up disappointed
Also, always use either an HDRI or a proper lighting setup. Hair / feathers / fur / whatever will NEVER look good if you're relying on the default Lamp and World setting
>a single frame in an animated feature
But don't they render at high resolutions like 8K or something?
If so it shouldn't take as long for a 1080p render.
Heartwarming scene even though the background is unfitting but I guess that's because of the school project rules.
Thank you for the feedback.
I agree with too much clumping it ends up looking like a worn old teddy bear in places.
I clamped the blacks to try and match the black on the plate, but I can see bringing them back up might help a bit.
I could have sworn that i premutiplied the noise so it shouldn't affect the plate as well. But i'll double check.
Light wrap as in too much or not enough?
yeah none of the plates that we got to choose from were really fitting, unfortunately
would like to see them in a nice nature setting.
of course it's not perfect but I still like them and especially the emotional part of it.
Oh good this'll save me making a new thread.
Have any of you hooked Shave and a Haircut into Renderman RIS yet? I got it working in Reyes, but RIS has been proving fruitless for several hours now.
I just can't seem to figure out how to combine S&H with PxrMarschnerHair, and I've run out of things to Google.
>Shave and a Haircut
what the fuck? Use fucking xgen you idiot
While XGen is great for a lot of stuff, it still doesn't compare to the level of quality Yeti and Shave & Haircut can achieve.
Tell that to Disney
Shave and a haircut and yeti are both SHIT outdated tools.
looks like shit, runs like shit, and is another reason for these nerds to not make any changes in gameplay but instead focus on MUH GRAPHICS. See all of unreal tournament, every gears of war, every other epic game for confirmation of this,
>Set up xGen hair.
>Render with Renderman.
>It only renders the underlying geo and not the hair itself.
>There's a handful of posts about this issue on Google but none of them have answers.
What a nightmare.
You're an idiot.
Enlighten me then, O ebic master.
Please, show some proof that Disney is using XGen for their hair.
Disney rolled their own hair painting, grooming and simulation tech within Maya.
The stupidity of many people on this board means you can't brush most stuff off as trolling anymore. It's unfortunate.
* @file rxuv.cpp
* @brief Simple program to illustrate reading in xuv files.
* <b>CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This software is the confidential and
* proprietary information of Walt Disney Animation Studios ("WDAS").
* This software may not be used, disclosed, reproduced or distributed
* for any purpose without prior written authorization and license
* from WDAS. Reproduction of any section of this software must include
* this legend and all copyright notices.
* Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.</b>
* @author Thomas V Thompson II
* @version tthompso 09/12/08 Initial Version
* @version tthompso 10/06/08 Update for xgen6 version of xpd
Disney created Xgen. Autodesk bought it form them. Disney has a lot of tools that remove the headache involved with xgen, but it's still xgen.
I have friends at Disney who've talked more or less about the process used. I'm not sure why Disney using xgen is under question.
I definitely wasn't expecting to see your work posted here, let alone you yourself posting as well lol.
As for OP's question, your best bet is Autodesks Xgen in Maya, it's what Disney and Pixar both use. You can set this shit up in zBrush using fibermesh as well. Fibermesh > Export Curves. you can export as .obj, .ma (Maya), .lwo (lightwave), .lxo (modo)
Shoulda bought a bulldozer friend
lmfao, no. Just because there's more cores in some of the AMD CPUs doesn't mean they're more powerful, because Intel's architecture gets a lot more work done cycle for cycle. AMD is WAY behind Intel these days it's not even a question which to choose anymore.
I adjusted my OS gamma to get closer to printing output which worked perfectly fine and also made that bulge drown in black.