Cycles Realistic Texturing HELP

I recently learned how to create really realistic textures using a normal texture, displacement texture, occlusion texture and a specular texture (except from the diffuse texture). Should I then separate the walls and the floor from each other so the floor gets 1 object and the walls get 1 object if I wanna make my walls and my floor in my scene more realistic using this method? Because the displacement modifier seem to only modify the floor if I use it when the walls and the floor is 1 and same object, or is it modifying the walls to? How do you think I should do to get the best look of this room? :slight_smile:

This is what my room looks like atm:

As you can see I have just added a plane as the floor, and extruded the edges of it which represents the walls. If I wanna make it to look like a realistic room, I think I should add a ceiling as well for the reflections, right?

Thx :slight_smile:

I don’t use displacement modifier, but it has an option to apply UV mapping. If you unwrap your room appropriately, you will get the displacement you are looking for.

First, you don’t need to break your walls apart. You can apply a different material to each face of an object, as well as unwrapping all the faces one by one. Well, that would be silly but, at least, you should understand that you can unwrap each wall separately and assign different materials… or the same.

And no, you don’t need the Displace modifier but just to feed a bump map into the Displacement socket of your materials. Unless you want to make logs coming out of the walls without building them, a simple bump map is enough. :smiley:

And yes, a ceiling is strongly recommended for a room… Or else the floor and the walls reflect the sky.

What you meant was making a bump map with gimp for example, and then adding a image texture node where I open up the bump map in. Then I feed the image texture into a bump node, and then connect the bump node into the displacement socket? Right? :slight_smile:
I made this bump maps for the walls:

and another one for the ceiling/floor but that one was to big to post here. Is the bump map good? Will post some pictures of the finished room here later.

Bump node… To be honest, I haven’t found a use for it yet. You don’t really need it. For the rest, yes, a bump map made in the GiMP loaded in a texture node plugged directly in the displacement socket. Well, almost directly.

Here, I use a procedural texture but it would be the same for a regular texture. You plug the color from the texture into an RGB to BW converter even if Blender would automatically do the conversion. (It’s just a good reflex to acquire to always only connect 2 sockets of the same color… unless you know what you’re doing.) Then you plug that BW output into a Math node to multiply it by a very tiny value. You don’t often need the displacement at full strength. The result is your displacement. That’s all.

This brick displacement was used in that fancy example made for the forum:

As you should see, another procedural displacement is used on the floor. The 400 samples I used for the image weren’t enough. You’ll be able to do better with this little something to occupy the last long winter nights:

Forum Bump.blend (253 KB)

As for your bump map, I don’t know. It depends on the result you want. What bothers me at first sight is that it’s not seamless. It may cause problems. The repetition can become very obvious. In general for such a noisy bump map, I wouldn’t bother doing it in the GiMP. I’d use procedural noise. The big advantage being that you can do a lot of modifications on the fly without having to redo the whole texture every time.

So instead of using a bump node, I plug my bump texture into a RGB to BW converter, then I plug that into a math node which I then plug into the displacement socket? If I understand you right I’m doing this to have control over how strong the displacement will be, because you don’t want full displacement always? Right? :slight_smile:

I have now changed my wall texture to a seamless one, didn’t know what that kind of texture was called (Seamless) which is very helpful to know. This is the texture I’m using atm:

I also wonder what the best way of making a bump map is, because I can’t find the proper way of doing it, seems like there are many ways. I have photoshop and gimp but now I do them in gimp as I saw someone else do it like that but whats the best way? Thx!

(I almost missed your answer. Too many new threads at once…)

I played a little with your texture and here is what I got: (400 sample only.)

The trick in here is that I simply use the texture to make the bump map and the gloss map. I think it gives a rather realistic result… altho I exaggerated a bit the gloss for this image.

The node tree:

Quite simple. :wink: Note that the bump map is also used as factor for the diffuse/gloss mix node in order to reduce the gloss of the dark and deeper areas.

The only thing that you might want to do is to tune a bit the RGB curves of the texture to eliminate the obvious light coming from above. For the rest, I’d say, don’t try too hard.

Hello together. That last node setup is an interesting technique to control the amount of glossiness. I like the subtle gloss at the ceiling. Looks a little bit like varnished material.

I experimented with this node setup and the texture, and added a bump node instead of the multipler, just to see how this would effect the results.

Here is the node setup.

And here is the (very raw) result. Ok, it’s a box now and no longer a room. And I let it do only 50 render passes and everything is really exaggerated, but the effect is visible imho.

Now the same setting with slightly modified values.

I rendered another one to compare the results when using different maps for color, normals, specularity, AO and displace. I created the maps with njob and the spec map in gimp. This last node setup is from the tutorial about texturing (Andrew Price with a small correction by Jonathan Williamson).

I’m not really content with the last render, I have made better images with this technique. But I’m sure that with some more tweaking the results from both setups can be brought very close together.

But yes, I like your setup because of it’s simplicity.

Thanks for many replies!
I tried mixing both of your methods and this is my current node setup on both walls and floor:

I think I got best result by doing that, here is a picture I rendered yesterday at 10k samples but at only 1920 x 1080:

I got 4 questions…

  1. I rendered at 10k samples, took around 5-6 hours (was sleepy and forgot to check the precise time before I closed the program). Still there is pretty many orange dots everywhere, how many samples do I need for a clean picture and why do I need that many? is it usual to need that much?

  2. Previously, I had a plane as a lamp which was above my ceiling lamp. I had the plane at 20 strength I think, and it lit up the room good. Now I tried to remove it to see if I could use my small ceiling lamp to lit up the room, which I think in reality shouldn’t be hard. I raised the strength of it from 20 to 500 and it lights up the room like I want it, but because of the high strength it’s completely white, and I want it to be a bit yellow. Can I make that and is it usual to use that high strength on a lamp?

  3. I saved it as a standard .PNG file, if I open it directly from my desktop it gets much darker and weirder contrast so I wonder if its better to save it as something else or does that matter? Because when I for example upload it to it looks like it should.

  4. What do you think about the image so far? :slight_smile:

Very well done so far. I really like it! :slight_smile:
But I have some hints, that may enhance it further. You questions are already along the same lines.

  1. To your first question. These dots are from the orange blender logo in the middle, the shader tries to calculate the bounce light of this orange object. Perhaps you read this wiki article on noise . There are options to reduce that without increasing time consuming render samples.

  2. Your second question is about the lighting. The lighting should be really enhanced in my opinion. At the moment your image is very dark and there are elements in your scene that are beyond recognition. What is that thing at the rear wall? I can’t tell. In the dark version of the image it looks like a microwave oven to me. But then I ask myself: what kind of structure is this thing around this microwave oven?

If you make your image a little bit brighter, it is clear that this is a poster or a screen shot - maybe from a game console. I did a little post work in gimp to demonstrate the effect. In general the lighter version is more “dramatic” in my opinion. Look at the bright translucency of the blender logo. The poster still remains a little bit difficult, but that’s a matter of its material (wood on wood).

Blender has something that helps you with this. In the image editor you can draw a sample line across your render. See the difference between your original and the lighter version. The evaluation of the sample line is the last widget in the toolbar on the respective right side. Your version has an even distribution from left to right. That’s good. But is is really flat. You achieve a much more impressive effect, if the peaks are higher. Higher peaks mean you have emphasized highlights and deeper valleys mean you have emphasized shadows in your image and therefore you have a more “dramatic” and interesting lighting.

I use this simple sample line, whenever I arrange the lighting for a new scene. I let cycles render a few samples and then toggle it from the render result. Then I adjust the lighting and so on.

  1. Your third question was about the image format. But png files are completely OK.

  2. What do you think about the image so far?
    Well, as I said, I really like it. Texturing looks good. But perhaps you should adress the lighting issues. In the brighter version the texturing will be a much more important aspect of your image.

I hope to see more of your good work soon. :yes:

10k samples! Damn! That’s a lot! A power of 500 is too strong for a lamp with such a small size. Reduce the power to 1 or 2 just to show a bright light on the image and add another bigger but softer lamp. Just make it invisible to the camera. Once you’ll have reduced the power of the light, you’ll be able to select the color. And never forget that a lamp doesn’t need to look like what actually illuminates the scene. Here is , as example, what I did for my ceiling lamp:

That’s how I gave the kind of yellow-orange halo to the sphere. The light at power 10 is what illuminates the scene and the rest is what the camera sees, i.e. what will be visible on the image.

As for your image, not bad but, if I used too much gloss, you didn’t use enough. You wood is too rough. And your bump map is too strong.

Fix your lighting and maybe we’ll see what’s that microwave (as Minoribus call it) that we barely see in the dark. :wink:

Last word… There shouldn’t be any problem with PNG. I work at 99.9% with PNG and I’ve noticed no difference in between Blender and “the outside world”.

Thx for both of you replies!
I found both useful. Minoribus, I just have a question about the brightness thing. Now I know you can check the brightness lvls via the samples line, but how did you make the image brighter? did you just increase the strength of the lamp or did you do something in the image editor? I mean you didn’t have my .blend file and still you managed to make the cooler brighter effect! How?! :slight_smile:

And Kaluura, thx for the tip about the light! I have now fixed another lightning object in another layer which works perfect, I also lowered the strength of the bump map as well as adding a bit more gloss to it. When I have done some more adjustments to the image I will post it again!

Hi 3DModeler, I cheated and loaded your image in gimp to adjust the brightness :). That was just to show my idea of the lighting. I prefer to render images directly from blender without any postwork. The UV/image-Editor in blender is mainly for editing UV Maps, it has nearly no image editing features - if you don’t count the grease pencil .

And Kaluura is right concerning the lights. Not every light source has to be visible.

I got another question now! :slight_smile:
If I have an object, and I want to make creases into the object, what would be the smartest way to do this? I know I could use the Boolean modifier, but the mesh gets fucked up then, right? What is the smartest and best way to do this? If I’m gonna add loop cuts for it and then extrude inwards I would need lots of loop cuts I think, at least there gotta be another greater way of doing it.
Thx! :slight_smile:

Boolean modifier? :eek: Yeah! The geometry will be totally fucked up. I really think that adding loop cuts and extruding inwards is a better solution. As for the amount of geometry, don’t worry too much. You don’t have much choice. If you want more than a cube with 8 vertices, you really need to add some geometry. :wink:

One trick to limit the geometry tho: Instead of adding loop cuts going all around your object, subdivide all the edges around some faces and re-shape the newly created loop cut and the faces to your needs.

@ Kaluura

can you explain the nodes set up you did for lamp i guess
and what is teh goal for this ?
is it to create a sort of hallow which does nto exist right now in cycles ?


Not at all. It’s just to look nicer. Emission shaders appear very flat so, with my node setup, a kind of halo enhances the round shape of the lamp… and also it allows me to have a brighter light for the scene than what the camera sees.

it woudl be nice to get halo in cycles
dont’ knwo when we gone get this
probably same time then volume


But if I wanna carve symbols that are curved, it would need lots and lots of subdivisions to be able to make the curves look smooth! No better way? :frowning: What would the professionals do? like you? What would you do? use boolean?