Crazybump test

I just downloaded Crazybump and wanted to test it out on a single unsubdivided plane. I used a picture of my fingerprint as the base image and generated normal,bump,specular from in Crazybump. I didn’t use the normal map because I didn’t know where to plug the damn thing in cycles. I think the result was pretty impressive. Probably less so to those of you that have more experience than me.

This is the image I started with (reduced res for the forum)

And this is the result I got in blender.

“I didn’t use the normal map because I didn’t know where to plug the damn thing in cycles”

The Normal Map node to the Normal socket.

Which normal socket? The diffuse normal socket or the glossy? I tried the diffuse and it didn’t do anything. This video was done with the bump map I produced plugged into the displace socket of the output node. I’d like to use the normal maps as Crazybump produces some damn fine ones.

Both. (unless you want it to look like the surface detail was glazed-over by the gloss, then don’t attach it to the glossy node)

Who’s thumbprint is that? 3d print a negative mold and put some balistic jello in it and you might be able to do some serious damage if that person got anything “protected” by a thumbprint scanner…

Hi Brent, here’s a file to show you how and where to plug your normal map in. Note that if you use jpegs to generate normal maps you are bound to get artifacts that show up on glossy surfaces. if you have not UV unwrapped nothing will happen.

BTW I have also used your thumbprint to empty out your Swiss bank account. Sorry about that.

Attachments (278 KB)

Trust me. My thumbprint is one you don’t want.

very good results DruBan. I used a png. What I uploaded here was jpeg because this forum won’t allow anything larger than a post stamp. I wonder if Crazybump will work with RAW files.

May I ask you guys if there’s any point in buying CrazyBump when you have Photoshop?

Crazybump automates everything and is very user friendly, unlike my experiences with the nvidia normal map tools in PS. It also can create a number of other maps.

However, personally, I prefer using nDo2 and dDo.

there is a script for Ps that can make normal maps. The link below will take you to some info on it, but I think the download links are broken. But a simple google of NDO will bring up places to download it. I have that page saved because it explains how to use it. I downloaded Crazybump and may or may not have cracked it. So my point is that your economic situation doesn’t necessarily have to impact your having the tools to make your art. Agree with me or disagree with me I don’t care.

Thank you. Photoshop also does displacement maps, but I agree that it looks a bit more complicated than Crazybump.

May I ask why you prefer nDo2? Do you think it would be better for pretty basic normal- and displacement maps than Crazybump?

I am not sure what crazybump does but I use Njob (fastest) neotexture edit (way more tools but a bit slower) or allegorithmic mapzone(so many tools it’s like a candy store, but then you can’t find the exit) All of these are free standing.

I think if you are just taking a 8bit image and converting it to a 24bit tangent space normal map Blender has the cycles node Bump under vector that appears to do all this without any fuss and on the fly. Results are the same. The only advantage to using an external is that you can apply smoothing and cleanup procedures to your generated normal map.

If I have not understood the guts of the Bump node correctly I hope someone will straighten that out.

nDo2 is a great tool all around. It has some really handy presets, it’s fast, and it produces the highest quality, and most customizeable normals from images that I’ve ever encountered. It also gives really nice tools for tweaking normal maps by hand which is something many other packages don’t offer in any form. Crazybump is great too, don’t get me wrong, I use both. But the control you have in CB is really nothing compared to nDo2, and I often find that I have to take more complex images into nDo to get the results that I want.

I, for one, am going to use either Crazybump or a similar program in Octane render; not in Cycles. I don’t know if that makes a difference as to which programme will be the better choice.

Octane doesn’t have as many mapping possibilities as Cycles, so a wide range of possibilities probably won’t be necessary. As far as I can see, it doesn’t support anything except bump- and normal maps.

Thank you, I think I’ve got a good idea of both programs now. I looked at an nDo2 video as well, and it did seem a bit scary to me. I think I’m looking for the most simple, yet reasonable decent solution right now so I guess I’ll get Crazybump and perhaps get back to nDo later if I’m going to need more control.

One last question about Crazybump vs. nDo:

Blurry structures can often be a problem - I don’t suppose any of the two programs is ‘better’ than the other in terms of sharpness?

I can’t speak to which is better for sharpness as I’ve only ever used nvidia’s plugin for Ps and CB, but you have a few sliders for detail in CB, though I take all my own pictures for textures and a blurry picture never makes it off my memory card. I refuse to even attempt to use them for anything. but that’s just me. Oh and the nvidia plugin is near unintelligible. Its got lots of options with no explanation as to what they do.