Discussion at the TC-RTC forum site 
http://tinachepforum.forumup.co.uk/about208-tinachepforum.html has made 
me work again on the skin texture technique given to us by Ive a couple 
of years ago (2008/2009) for Poser figures. In the image below are some 
of the results using different figures and different settings for 
specular intensity and or diffuse roughness, from left to right: Simon 
(Poser 7), Alyson (Poser 8), and Anton Kisiel's Apollo Maximus.

I am still not sure about whether the bump sizes should be positive or 
negative. I find positive values looking better in general but that 
might be a wrong approach. Also the size of the highlights may be a 
matter of debate.

I shall post the code as it appears now to be in p.t.scene-files under 
the same header.

What do you think? I need a bit of feedback on this.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'skintest.jpg' (600 KB)

Preview of image 'skintest.jpg'

On 12-02-13 07:25 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> What do you think? I need a bit of feedback on this.
>
> Thomas

Simon and Apollo look pretty good, but Alyson looks like she's wet, or 
oily, or something...reflection is too high.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-2-2012 13:33, Tail Kinker wrote:
>
> Simon and Apollo look pretty good, but Alyson looks like she's wet, or
> oily, or something...reflection is too high.

That was exactly the intention for Alyson ;-)

However, is this a realistic wet skin?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Le 13/02/2012 14:10, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 13-2-2012 13:33, Tail Kinker wrote:
>>
>> Simon and Apollo look pretty good, but Alyson looks like she's wet, or
>> oily, or something...reflection is too high.
> 
> That was exactly the intention for Alyson ;-)
> 
> However, is this a realistic wet skin?
> 

It's not realistic for Alyson:
 * the oily look is not expected on face (it's oily, not wet)
 * a true lady would use anti-glossy powder on face before applying any
make-up. At best the lips might be "wet looking", but that's not the
skin anymore.
 * lady (true and false) never sweat. ever. Not on face anyway.
 * The tan looks strange, too dark for an unexposed skin, and too light
for a sun bathed skin.

Without (facial) hair, there is no reason for the skin to keep water as
a film. either the wet aspect is distributed on the small facial hair
areas (which is not the full face), or it take the form of many beads on
the surface. (but gravity would soon ruin that)

Post a reply to this message

On 13-2-2012 15:14, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 13/02/2012 14:10, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> However, is this a realistic wet skin?
>
> It's not realistic for Alyson:
>   * the oily look is not expected on face (it's oily, not wet)
I agree. So, I need to look for a better moistener ;-)

>   * a true lady would use anti-glossy powder on face before applying any
> make-up. At best the lips might be "wet looking", but that's not the
> skin anymore.
Yeah, well, not sure if Alyson is a true lady...

>   * lady (true and false) never sweat. ever. Not on face anyway.
Oh dear! I should have known that; what? What?

>   * The tan looks strange, too dark for an unexposed skin, and too light
> for a sun bathed skin.
Tans come in all kinds of hues... ;-) but I agree that the present one 
could be better and more natural looking.
>
> Without (facial) hair, there is no reason for the skin to keep water as
> a film. either the wet aspect is distributed on the small facial hair
> areas (which is not the full face), or it take the form of many beads on
> the surface. (but gravity would soon ruin that)
Yes. That is why the image looks so oily. It would be interesting to 
develop code that simulates this... I have to think about it.

Thanks!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.02.2012 13:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> I am still not sure about whether the bump sizes should be positive or
> negative. I find positive values looking better in general but that
> might be a wrong approach.

Don't worry about it: You can't get it right anyway, due to a known 
problem with POV-Ray's implementation of UV-mapped image-based bump 
maps. Unfortunately, fixing it isn't exactly trivial.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-2-2012 1:13, clipka wrote:
> Am 13.02.2012 13:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>> I am still not sure about whether the bump sizes should be positive or
>> negative. I find positive values looking better in general but that
>> might be a wrong approach.
>
> Don't worry about it: You can't get it right anyway, due to a known
> problem with POV-Ray's implementation of UV-mapped image-based bump
> maps. Unfortunately, fixing it isn't exactly trivial.

Ah? Interesting to hear this. I hope (I know!) you will find a solution.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.02.2012 13:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> ...skin texture technique given to us by Ive a couple
> of years ago (2008/2009) for Poser figures.

Oops. I don't remember and was vaguely under the impression that this 
was one of the things I would like to do but never managed ;)

> I am still not sure about whether the bump sizes should be positive or
> negative. I find positive values looking better in general but that
> might be a wrong approach.

Not so wrong, as I have observed that some bump maps *do* look better 
with negative values.

> What do you think? I need a bit of feedback on this.
>
I think the texture of the Apollo Maximus figure is the best you can 
achieve without using some kind of SSS.

And for Alyson, well she looks quite oily - as to be expected - if you 
are after a wet look there is no other way as adding some real droplets, 
I think...

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 15-2-2012 2:17, Ive wrote:
> Am 13.02.2012 13:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> ...skin texture technique given to us by Ive a couple
>> of years ago (2008/2009) for Poser figures.
>
> Oops. I don't remember and was vaguely under the impression that this
> was one of the things I would like to do but never managed ;)
Oh yes you did, and this is the result coming from that, and thanks 
again :-)

>
>> I am still not sure about whether the bump sizes should be positive or
>> negative. I find positive values looking better in general but that
>> might be a wrong approach.
>
> Not so wrong, as I have observed that some bump maps *do* look better
> with negative values.
That is indeed true.

>
>> What do you think? I need a bit of feedback on this.
>>
> I think the texture of the Apollo Maximus figure is the best you can
> achieve without using some kind of SSS.
Yes, so I believe too. SSS would of course be the next stage to go but 
that was not the primary intention here.

>
> And for Alyson, well she looks quite oily - as to be expected - if you
> are after a wet look there is no other way as adding some real droplets,
> I think...
Yes, exactly I came to that same conclusion: added droplets would make 
an excellent effect. Also, I have been musing about an image_pattern 
that would vary the shininess of the skin, concentrating the wet areas 
as it were in spots on the skin... I am not sure...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 15-2-2012 2:17, Ive wrote:
> Am 13.02.2012 13:25, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

>> What do you think? I need a bit of feedback on this.
>>
> I think the texture of the Apollo Maximus figure is the best you can
> achieve without using some kind of SSS.
>
> And for Alyson, well she looks quite oily - as to be expected - if you
> are after a wet look there is no other way as adding some real droplets,
> I think...

I agree. When the skin is so wet, you would expect small 'puddles' in 
places where they can collect and droplets at overhangs like the chin.

If it is intended as oil, most of us seldom seen females fully oiled (I 
am told it happens at the sort of parties that we never attend). Hence 
it is unfamiliar and therefore unconvincing.



-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message