[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1553476273666.jpg (6 KB, 240x193)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
how do I make cartoony/anime PBR materials for non realistic photorealistic renders.

Like 3D anime girls that doesn't look like those uncanny valley garbage renders of 3D anime girls.
>>
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/XJkK3
you mean something like this?
>>
Post examples of what you dont want first I would say.
>>
>>682914
that looks nice.

>>682917
like if a top tier 3D guy tried to make disney quality anime renders that look still like 2D but also like a pixar movie in terms of quality.

like a hybrid between Guilty gear 3D with cartoony PBR textures.

Not really sure how to explain it, I guess cartoony photorealism is a contradiction.

Is more like if someone made an oil painting in real life of anime but in a 3D software.
>>
>>682917
>>682914
>>682933
I guess paperman is the closest I can think off what I mean.

imagine paperman shot but with PBR textures.
>>
File: 153706421628737534.gif (2.56 MB, 480x480)
2.56 MB
2.56 MB GIF
>>682934
>imagine paperman shot but with PBR textures.

somehow I can't imagine that
>>
>>682933

So you want to emulate guilty gear. It just flat colors and duplicate the mesh for the black outline.
>>
>>682939
>>682942
I mean PBR materials for shit like the clothes and backgrounds, maybe the anime skin will have some subsurface skatering PBR pixar skin material.
>>
>>682912
>>682933
You don't even know what you want, so you can't even begin to describe it in a way that makes sense. Come back when you figure that out.
>>
>>682912
>how do I make cartoony/anime PBR materials for non realistic photorealistic renders.
That's not how PBR works.
>>
>>682912
>how do I make cartoony/anime PBR materials for non realistic photorealistic renders
very, VERY contradictory in itself
>>
File: httyd.jpg (1.08 MB, 1800x1200)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
>>682943
Only thing that comes to mind is something like How to Train Your Dragon.
They've got that cartoony look, but I've always been pretty pleased with how good their actual materials and stuff look.
I think they hit a nice balance.
>>
>>682955
there's zero visual elements similar to anime though..... all the shading is very 3D
can't you find a better ref?
>>
>>682955
>paperman
>httyd
>uhh... maybe gg??
Mate you should just come to terms that what you actually want is a Pixar/Disney look, not an anime look.
>>
>>682950
>>682954
t. creativelets
Rareware's been doing it since the N64 days, actually even before then with Donkey Kong Country
>>
>>682961
>>682969
the OP clearly says cartoony/anime, do you guys ever read before sperging out?
>>
>>682978
stfu asswipe, he kept repeating anime throughout the thread
see >>682969
>>
File: 1466474807488.png (165 KB, 639x462)
165 KB
165 KB PNG
>>682974
>PBR
>SNES & N64
pick one
>>
File: 1556097202551.jpg (364 KB, 900x780)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
>>682984
literally PBR before PBR was a thing
>>
>>682974
>>682985
godfuckingdamnit, does nobody here know anything about PBR or rendering?!

this shit requires physically accurate lighting and shading models/calculations, which includes global illumination, which was too expensive for computers pre-2000s

pre-rendered sprites and early generations of consoles with 3D games are FAR from PBR

>Donkey Kong Country, release late 1994, made with silicon graphics, thus a rasterization (non-PBR) system

go read on the subject instead of embarrassing yourself
>>
>>682985
These (Alias) renders use the standard material setup of the time: diffuse/color + greyscale specularity + greyscale bump, nothing else.
>>
>>682974
Can't tell if bait or op being retard at this point.
>>
>>682933
Maybe something like pic related?
>>
>>683008

But he said he was trying to avoid that look. Dont know what he wants desu.
>>
>>683008
>>683011
he mentioned something like paperman with PBR materials.
>>
>>683003
most likely retard...
>>
>>682988
THISSS
>>
>>682912
You sound clueless
>>
>>683029
He is. This guy is called cris and he's been a plague in /agdg/ and on other boards, posting his stupid frogs, asking stupid questions and learning nothing.
>>
>>683032
>posting his stupid frogs
what a monster
>>
>>682988
>this shit requires physically accurate lighting and shading models/calculations

PBR is a huge meme, all of the """accurate""" models only model a tiny fraction or IRL materials correctly. Forget about physical accuracy in engines like UE4, they implemented the most basic bitch Lambert as the irradiance term which makes everything look like plastic. Even worse, they didn't even have a unified system for brightness values until they stremlined it a few months ago. Scanning and good material values will lead to maybe 95% accuracy but that has nothing to do with PBR.

The only thing PBR does is it babysits low-skilled artists a lot better than the Diffuse/Specular workflow did. That's it.
>>
>>683094
mate I agree on some level, but still the modern PBR workflow is a much more robust standard than any rendering workflow in the 90s or 2000s

at least today I can throw a shaded model around in Unity, Marmoset, and Substance and with a similar lighting it will look virtually the same... lot better than the old methods of constant workarounds and tweaks to the shading models

all this to say, considering today's PBR, I just wanted to point out to >>682985 that what he was saying was completely idiotic
>>
>>683094
While you are correct about the pitiful limits of common BRDFs, the whole idea that we should be working with a BRDF in the first place so that we can rigorously define the "accuracy" of the model owes to the PBR framework to begin with. One other benefit is the rough ability (pun intended) to transfer your maps from one engine to the next, even like Renderman -> Unreal, without complete loss of fidelity.
>>
so what I'm gathering from this thread is that you cannot combine elements of realism and stylization. is impossible
>>
>>683125
well you can blend them up to create your own style, but by definition.. yeah basically the more you stylize, the less realism you have (from both the aesthetic and technical points of view)
>>
>>683026
Well he did open his post with a Pepe...
>>
File: 1546174833659.jpg (62 KB, 960x486)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>683133
what's wrong with that
>>
>>683134
Pepes are low effort. A symbol of when 4chan entered the mainstream and people with the desire to fit in, but without the patience to learn about the site's culture, found in Pepe an easy way to blend. They are, in the memetic space, the equivalent of doughnuts in the 3D computer graphics world.
>>
>>683137
>A symbol of when 4chan entered the mainstream and people with the desire to fit in, but without the patience to learn about the site's culture

that would be Guy Fawkes masks
>>
>>683110
>One other benefit is the rough ability (pun intended) to transfer your maps from one engine to the next, even like Renderman -> Unreal, without complete loss of fidelity.

That's the idea, yes, but every engine still implements their very own routines for things like GI/AO/Shadows/other direct and indirect lighting, it doesn't work in practice.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.