Oh look more displacement maps in other programs :P

http://www.projectmessiah.com/

Pretty :smiley:

Yeah, I was quite awestruck when I saw that, too. :o

On the second link, ranked top reason to buy the software, doesnā€™t those gadgets look a bit familiar? :wink:

ā€¦ and yes, I envy those displacent maps too. :frowning:

I have a rather obscure problem with displacement maps, being that they appear to be used largely to obscure intentional design with meaningless detail, and thatā€™s why I reckon all orcs and zombies in movies now look the same. People cover up ultra generic designs with displacement maps that donā€™t really add much to the actual character, just noise it up a bit.

Iā€™m not saying displacement is a bad thing, but it says quite a lot when you can guess which guy has just brought ZBrush, just like when Brazil first appeared and everyone overemphasised the ā€œoh look Iā€™ve got global illuminationā€ thing.

That sample render on cgsociety benefits more from the DOF, GI and specularity maps than it does from itā€™s displacement. It just made making such an irregular shape easier.

What Iā€™d be truly impressed by is someone using displacement to speed up creation of something which doesnā€™t resemble someoneā€™s idle scribbles on a Wacom pad. Oh Iā€™m angry today . . .

I donā€™t think it is a coincidence they use orcs and zombies (and other characters with lots of warts and veins) to show of the technology. However, it is NOT like it is all it can do, and also, I very much doubt they all look the same. What IS the revolution, is the time you save when you DO need the detail. Also, it is far more versatile than just for char-modeling. You could just as well use it for tire tracks and tarmac-surface and other stuff. Not only do you save time on the modeling, you can also keep your models from becoming extremely complex.

Donā€™t know what this is supposed to have to do with ā€œmeaningless detailsā€.

http://206.145.80.237/intpageimages/digic/DIGIC_WH_Intro_WIP_02.jpg
http://206.145.80.239/zbc/showthread.php?t=020709

Matt :slight_smile:

Actually that link shows my problem rather exactly. They all look the same, as the base mesh is the same. Only last minute details are different. To me this would demonstrate a lack of having fleshed out your concept properly before you got to the computer, or sheer laziness. If you start with a base mesh and just paint displacement you will always hit a point where you canā€™t give something that final bit of character to identify it. For example, could you make the cast of the simpsons by having one base mesh and just having a displacement map to describe the differences? I seriously doubt it, and yet thatā€™s why games and movies appear to be heading towards serious cookie cutter character models.

I have to broadly agree with Burre, especially with regards production speed when you do want the detail, and it is no coincidence this kind of thing is being using to demonstrate it, but itā€™s just as tiresome as the pure white GI setups that used to dominate CG forums across the internet. Itā€™s just fad based, and you do wonder what the next big tool to play with is going to be.

These tools are no substitute for having actually thought about what your result should look like before turning your computer on, and yet thatā€™s exactly the way they appear to be used.

Actually that link shows my problem rather exactly. They all look the same, as the base mesh is the same. Only last minute details are different. To me this would demonstrate a lack of having fleshed out your concept properly before you got to the computer, or sheer laziness. If you start with a base mesh and just paint displacement you will always hit a point where you canā€™t give something that final bit of character to identify it. For example, could you make the cast of the simpsons by having one base mesh and just having a displacement map to describe the differences? I seriously doubt it, and yet thatā€™s why games and movies appear to be heading towards serious cookie cutter character models.

I have to broadly agree with Burre, especially with regards production speed when you do want the detail, and it is no coincidence this kind of thing is being using to demonstrate it, but itā€™s just as tiresome as the pure white GI setups that used to dominate CG forums across the internet. Itā€™s just fad based, and you do wonder what the next big tool to play with is going to be.

These tools are no substitute for having actually thought about what your result should look like before turning your computer on, and yet thatā€™s exactly the way they appear to be used.[/quote]

Did you see Incredibles ?? All of the people and includeing the teacher were from one base meshā€¦

Only the main charecters were not from the same mesh

I see people saying this a lot, and I never understand it. Perhaps if you took a look at some of the nice stuff people are creating in zbrushā€¦

http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=19410
http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=19412

http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=29470
http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=29471
http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=29472

This last one was done completely in Z, from start to finish
http://209.132.69.82/picasso/images/final.jpg

Another one modelled completley from within Zā€¦

http://206.145.80.239/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=4342

Cheers,
Xarf

I think that kind of was the purpose, to show the diversity possible without adding geometry. Do not confuse finished work with tech demos.

If you start with a base mesh and just paint displacement you will always hit a point where you canā€™t give something that final bit of character to identify it.

Well, modifying the mesh and applying displacement isnā€™t mutually exclusive. You cannot label a tool ā€œuselessā€ or a ā€œgimmickā€ just because it canā€™t do ā€œeverythingā€. Every tool needs artistic input to be useful and I really donā€™t think disp-mapping produce generic results, rather I think it is a combination of similar models being done (fantasy creatures or humanoids) and also you knowing it isnā€™t feasible to model (and thus it must be disp-map).

These are also uses of disp-maps: Here

Actually that link shows my problem rather exactly. They all look the same, as the base mesh is the same. Only last minute details are different. To me this would demonstrate a lack of having fleshed out your concept properly before you got to the computer, or sheer laziness. If you start with a base mesh and just paint displacement you will always hit a point where you canā€™t give something that final bit of character to identify it. For example, could you make the cast of the simpsons by having one base mesh and just having a displacement map to describe the differences? I seriously doubt it, and yet thatā€™s why games and movies appear to be heading towards serious cookie cutter character models.

I have to broadly agree with Burre, especially with regards production speed when you do want the detail, and it is no coincidence this kind of thing is being using to demonstrate it, but itā€™s just as tiresome as the pure white GI setups that used to dominate CG forums across the internet. Itā€™s just fad based, and you do wonder what the next big tool to play with is going to be.

These tools are no substitute for having actually thought about what your result should look like before turning your computer on, and yet thatā€™s exactly the way they appear to be used.[/quote]

Well, there is a great difference between photorealism and hyper-realistic or cartoony styles. The models in the link you quoted are meant to be realistic, there is no reason to compare them to Simpsons characters.

You did not comment on Zack Petrocā€™s model, do you think those are all last minute details?

The use of a base for a lot of different characters is a workflow decision and does not have anything to do with laziness. What makes more sense, setting up one model and having a hundred different characters, or setting up a hundred individual characters?

Furthermore of course you can sculpt every model seperately, without using the same base mesh for everything, I donā€™t know what is so upsetting about this. Since you wonā€™t be putting a million polygon model into a scene the displacement map simply gives you the option to apply further detail on render on a lower resolution mesh.

Matt :slight_smile:

Actually that one is good, but why are they not then using this diversity to show how flexible it is? The reality is 99% of the people using it seem obsessed with the ā€œme tooā€ orcs factor, as opposed to that kind of thing.

Also, regards the Incredibles, why do the main characters need different base meshes? Because thereā€™s only so much the displacement thing can do on itā€™s own. Some people seem to be hailing this as a sort of breakthrough for all purposes, and it simply isnā€™t. In fact in many ways itā€™s insanely inefficient.

The use of a base for a lot of different characters is a workflow decision and does not have anything to do with laziness.

Itā€™s not workflow, itā€™s production timeline compression at work. In an ideal world you wouldnā€™t be using the same base mesh.

Clearly good use of displacement can get you from 80% to 100% quality a lot faster than if you use simple mesh modelling. (And the example Zarf posted above I would argue falls into this camp). However, most of them, including most examples on the websites of the tools promoted, fail to demonstrate this at all adequately, and in fact just look like special effects from post-modern B-movies.

Anyone not believing me should google zbrush and look at the picture theyā€™re currently pushing it with.

Kid Tripod = Troll

Then you should be able to make a wonderful portrait of me in ZBrush.

Touche, Kid Tripod! I understand what youā€™re saying. Getting it, though, takes more honesty than awe.

%<

Nope, because for some reason they all look the same.

The models that Iā€™ve seen Pixologic ā€œpushā€ ZB with were heads, swords, fish, rhinos, an elephant and I think one orc.

Also itā€™s not like there havenā€™t been displacement maps before ZB, there were already plugins allowing you to generate displacements in other apps. Also SharpConstruct will be able to extract displacements (although you will probably not be a fan of it).

Matt :slight_smile:

I think what youā€™re seeing is more a consequence of the general lack of imagination and originality of the online ā€˜CG artist communityā€™, rather than something thatā€™s necessarily due to the tool itself. Just look at CGTalk - there have always been thousands of orcs and dragons and babes in bikini armour. Now theyā€™re just bumpy too.

Correct! So please stop judging it as a complete workbench, because it isnā€™t. It is unparalllelld at what it does, but of course it is not like a ā€œmake-an-incredible-unique-characterā€-script with a one button interface. If you think the results are cheesy, believe me, you can surely do that with polys too (it would only take longer). It is one tool amongst others, not a solution for every problem, and for what it does it sure is goundbreaking.

Iā€™m judging it that way because it appears to be the way itā€™s being used and promoted.

I think brokenā€™s hit the nail on the head. My problem isnā€™t with the technology here, itā€™s the way that given such a flexible set of tools the CG ā€œartā€ community manages to produce a volume of work which no one could really classify as diverse. Itā€™s even more depressing when the software makers start pandering to this in the manner the displacement crowd have (although for decent commercial reasons Iā€™m sure).

My apologies if Iā€™ve offended anyone here, Iā€™m hoping itā€™s all taken in a level of humour with which itā€™s intended. I must confess that this sort of thing being promoted (and then picked up by forum fanboys across the world) as the pinnacle of CG to which we must all aspire to really annoys me though!

in the studio environment you have a base mesh from which you devellop individual characters. the link shown is just a tech demo to show how different expressionscan quickly be made without altering the geometry.

displacement maps are the way to go because you get the fine details of pores and wrincles while you have a low mesh to animate. that trend only will continue to devellop. of course could it be that to many now use displacement maps to pump up their bad textures.

that issue is the same with GI, HDRI and other things.

but many use it in a good way. rough stone looks good without displacement maps.