Download Trial Buy now

Search  | Login  | Register

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Offline
User avatar
2nd Place Winner
Master Ono did it again :D
seems to be worth nagging you hard about something :lol:
Thanks a lot for the effort!

_________________
Cindigo user - My Portfolio
3 x 4770k with 32GB each


 Profile  
 
Offline
Indigo 100
OnoSendai wrote:
Here you go dcm, just for you :)

Preliminary normal map support has been implemented (see image)

Etienne:
The standard basis for normal mapping seems to be something like:
* Take dp/ds (where p is the surface position, and s is the first texture coordinate)
* remove components in the direction of the shading normal N_s
* normalise. This forms the i vector of the basis.
Likewise for dp/dt to form j
N_s is used for k.
Note that this is not necessarily an orthogonal basis, if dp/ds and dp/dt are not orthogonal.


That was fast! Looking sexy.

_________________
--

http://www.tomsvilans.com
http://www.tomsvilans.com/blog


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
1st Place Winner
OnoSendai wrote:
Here you go dcm, just for you :)

Preliminary normal map support has been implemented (see image)

Etienne:
The standard basis for normal mapping seems to be something like:
* Take dp/ds (where p is the surface position, and s is the first texture coordinate)
* remove components in the direction of the shading normal N_s
* normalise. This forms the i vector of the basis.
Likewise for dp/dt to form j
N_s is used for k.
Note that this is not necessarily an orthogonal basis, if dp/ds and dp/dt are not orthogonal.


Hi Ono,

There are several tangent space conventions used. The one used in 3dsmax is quite different from this one, and should be used as a reference I think.

It is explained there:
http://area.autodesk.com/userdata/fckda ... %20Max.pdf

Using the wrong tangent space leads to inconsistencies when rendering normal maps

Etienne

_________________
Eclat-Digital Research
http://www.eclat-digital.com


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
Hi Etienne,
Nice link, thanks!


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
Another normal map test.

The model is the 'infinite head'.


Attachments:
head_test.jpg
head_test.jpg [ 145.33 KiB | Viewed 2122 times ]
 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
:twisted:


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
OnoSendai wrote:
Another normal map test.

The model is the 'infinite head'.

Can we see an example on hard surfaces, with other maps put on please ? Normal maps support is a great addition for digital sculptors. Bump is getting quite an old trick by the time I recon.

Don't show this on an implicit surface or I'll bug you till it's into the trunk !!!

_________________
5000km away from his computer. the guy has a stupidSpy under Android.


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
1st Place Winner
OnoSendai wrote:
Another normal map test.

The model is the 'infinite head'.


Nice!

I can see some tangent space discrepancy (between the soft generating the map and the renderer) on the upper left I think

Etienne

_________________
Eclat-Digital Research
http://www.eclat-digital.com


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
2nd Place Winner
I think its a general issue: viewtopic.php?p=113329#p113329

_________________
Cindigo user - My Portfolio
3 x 4770k with 32GB each


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
1st Place Winner
Zom-B wrote:
I think its a general issue: viewtopic.php?p=113329#p113329


Nope, I don't think so. The image on your link relates to precision issue, whereas this is a typical tangent space convention problem

_________________
Eclat-Digital Research
http://www.eclat-digital.com


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
Hi Etienne,
I think Zom-B is right, it's a terminator artifact.


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
Here's the same scene but with 3 subdivs on the head.

Btw, one thing I really don't like about the approximating subdivision schemes (Loop + Catmull Clark) that Indigo uses is that they soften/distort detail, such as this guy's features. (You can see this by flicking back and forwards between the two renders)

Maybe we need to look into interpolating subdivision schemes.


Attachments:
head_test_3subdivs.jpg
head_test_3subdivs.jpg [ 180.09 KiB | Viewed 2021 times ]
 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
I think it's alright really. If the maps were baked against the lowpo version then an offset on the smoothed one is expected (those moving volumes might be mapped).

I presume that all sculpting and modeling apps use C-C by default, that's the way for results to remain consistent accross them.

Well I don't know, your call.

_________________
5000km away from his computer. the guy has a stupidSpy under Android.


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
2nd Place Winner
OnoSendai wrote:
Btw, one thing I really don't like about the approximating subdivision schemes (Loop + Catmull Clark) that Indigo uses is that they soften/distort detail, such as this guy's features.
Put a checkerboard texture on him if you want to see the distort better.
If you like to disable the normal smoothing, simply use a Diffuse Transmitter or a Glossy Transparent material :roll:

OnoSendai wrote:
Maybe we need to look into interpolating subdivision schemes.
I already asked for that back in 2010 :?

Since Indigo v3 you implemented quad based subdiv, what countered the distortion a little, but doesn't have any view dependency working...

Here are some images:

C4D based subdiv with CC @ 2:
Attachment:
subdiv_c4d_CC.jpg
subdiv_c4d_CC.jpg [ 78.63 KiB | Viewed 1997 times ]


Indigos subdiv with quads @ 2:
Attachment:
subdiv_indigo_quads.jpg
subdiv_indigo_quads.jpg [ 83.93 KiB | Viewed 1997 times ]


Indigos subdiv with tris@ 2:
Attachment:
subdiv_indigo_tris.jpg
subdiv_indigo_tris.jpg [ 94.38 KiB | Viewed 1997 times ]



That distortion comes trough having non uniform scaled polygons, here a mesh shot of the model:
Attachment:
subdiv_indigo_color.jpg
subdiv_indigo_color.jpg [ 89.62 KiB | Viewed 1997 times ]

_________________
Cindigo user - My Portfolio
3 x 4770k with 32GB each


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
Hi Zom-B
It's the smoothing of the vertex positions themselves that I was referring to, not the UVs, although that can be an issue as well.


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group