Jump to content
3DCoat Forums
arumiat

PBR in Blender Cycles

Recommended Posts

I've noticed that roughness in 3D-Coat is 4 times stronger than in Cycles. So 50% of Roughness will correspond to about 12-15% in Cycles. That is very crucial for the final output. Colors can look "darker" because they are "wet", so you need to dry them out :)

I tried to lower the right point in RGB curves to 25% for Roughness map, and that worked almost instantly. That's not right, of course, so I had to make a curve more "curvy" :D

Results: 1 - 3DC viewport, 2 - Cycles, 3 - Curve profile. (EDITED pics)

 

I like cycles picture even more - that's all I need: a better picture :D

post-896-0-89713500-1454079368_thumb.jpg

post-896-0-58578700-1454081324_thumb.jpg

post-896-0-39010900-1454081369_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that pictures a bit blurred here, so here is a link for rendered file and one more

 

P.S. IMHO it's all about Roughness map! So Curves rulez! :)

RGB Curves do rule for the roughness map set at Non-Color data...   :drinks:

Yeah, how Blender reads the non-linearize roughness map is different for sure.

I also set my Color Space to Rec 709 since I use an HDTV for a monitor.

post-518-0-16067500-1454089124_thumb.png

Edited by digman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion:
You will have to decide what you want.

 

Realtime PBR are never a "real" representation of a material. They are really good, but they currently does not hit the reality. The cycles renderings are a better representation in my opinion. So what would be better is to represent the same like it is in cycles and not to try to set the cycles result to be the same like in realtime engines.

 

We can be happy to have a very good PBR engine in 3D-Coat that represents materials "nearly" the same like in a pathtracer like cycles.

 

But your work is really good.

 

I planned to make some tests in blender too, but had no time for such things unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion:

You will have to decide what you want.

 

Realtime PBR are never a "real" representation of a material. They are really good, but they currently does not hit the reality. The cycles renderings are a better representation in my opinion. So what would be better is to represent the same like it is in cycles and not to try to set the cycles result to be the same like in realtime engines.

 

We can be happy to have a very good PBR engine in 3D-Coat that represents materials "nearly" the same like in a pathtracer like cycles.

 

But your work is really good.

 

I planned to make some tests in blender too, but had no time for such things unfortunately

I agree... We had real type of shaders for metals and dielectric materials in unbiased Pathtracers for years... PBR materials are just fast to setup and approximate reality...

 

 I think the 3 points sums up PBR in a nutshell. 

 

1. Increase richness of materials.

2.Materials responding correctly to many types of lighting and environments.

3.Artist simplified controls.

 

The below, is an part of article from Disney which I get the above information from: There are other articles that mentioned the same...

 

Brent Burley, Walt Disney Animation Studios

 

"Following our success with physically-based hair shading on Tangled [27], we began considering physically-based shading models for a broader range of materials. With the physically-based hair model, we were able to achieve a great degree of visual richness while maintaining artistic control. However, it proved challenging to integrate the lighting of the hair with the rest of the scene which had still used traditional “ad-hoc” shading models and punctual lights. For subsequent films we wanted to increase the richness of all of our materials while making lighting responses more consistent between materials and environments and also wanted to improve artist productivity through the use of simplified controls." 

 

In my renderings, I am more concerned in how the material is responding to many different lights and environments than an perfect match. I do try to match closely as that is from an artistic view and not a reality view...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This goes with the above post... 

 One reason to match to the 3DC rendering (Render Room) is it helps me judge how the material is responding to said light and environment in Cycles. I generally desire the same reflective qualities to be in the Cycles render that I see in the 3DC smart material.

 

I need to adjust the roughness map as Cycles roughness through the PBR shader node that I like to use is not as reflective as in 3DC. I use the same Environmental Hdr.  Once tweaking the roughness map, I no longer need to reference 3DC...

 

Tweaking the albedo and normal map is an artistic call...

Metal map needs no tweaking...

Edited by digman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always improve your cycles render result by using a postpro effect. The point is how the renderer handles the colors. There is a difference between all renderers. It is the main reason why artists prefer one solution more than others. And don't forget the realtime antialiasing. 3D-Coat handles this rudimentary at the moment.

 

PS: A good article by Brent Burley by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the richness of the colors that Blender produces in the renders, which of course can be made better or adjusted through compositing...

Today I started to work on the Glossness--Specluar Color workflow from 3DC to Blender, no PBR node shader needed.

Here are two results of the testing so far...

1000 samples....Cycles... 

Fantasy metals covered with a dielectric material  The one on the right is duller and has the same reflective qualities as in 3DC.

 

Sometime this year, I will add Houdini to my workflow.

 

Once done with both workflows, I will make 2 videos. One for each workflow...

post-518-0-91011400-1454537980_thumb.png

Edited by digman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, glad to know you are searching for the best result. I agree with Taros that Cycles gives more true (truer?) picture as it uses ray tracing, etc. + anti-aliasing making it look not as crisp as in 3dc's viewport.

For me, I'm totally happy with the Cycles results (after tweaking Roughness RGB curve).

BTW for my above pictures I used 50-64 samples ;)

 

Malo, could you give me that gun with textures for tests??? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, glad to know you are searching for a best result. I agree with Taros that Cycles gives more true (truer?) picture as it uses ray tracing, etc. + anti-aliasing making it look not as crisp as in 3dc's viewport.

For me, I'm totally happy with the Cycles results (after tweaking Roughness RGB curve).

BTW for my above pictures I used 50-64 samples ;)

 

Malo, could you give me that gun with textures for tests??? )

Oh, I like beating my images over the head with Samples!  :p:

The Glossness---specular color workflow I am working on is for 3DC users who do not what to go the PBR node route using the roughness---metalness workflow...

I am quite pleased that both workflows work well...

Edited by digman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh! Then I will put the brakes on... and will be waiting to see these lovely tweaks...  :moil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, PBR in 3DC is being tweaked right now, so I suggest you no rush 

I put the tutorials on hold, so hopefully the tweaking will be done soon and a new PBR update will be around the corner...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×