On 1-10-2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>
> Thanks, I never set Show Population so that might be one of the problems.
>
> I will waste some more time. :-D


As far as I understand the whole procedure so far, Show Population 
effectively shows and generates the end result. It is this also which is 
exported, along with the basic lines used for the hair construction.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 01/10/2011 9:39 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 1-10-2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, I never set Show Population so that might be one of the problems.
>>
>> I will waste some more time. :-D
>
>
> As far as I understand the whole procedure so far, Show Population
> effectively shows and generates the end result. It is this also which is
> exported, along with the basic lines used for the hair construction.
>


exported. So I tried a few times just using them. A quick test shows 
that 6000 hairs are too much. ;-)

Thanks again.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1-10-2011 12:04, Stephen wrote:


> exported. So I tried a few times just using them. A quick test shows
> that 6000 hairs are too much. ;-)

Maybe I am seeing something else, but without Show Population you only 
get the guide hairs I believe, while with Show Population checked, you 
get guide hairs *and* the rest of the Hair Dresser's creation.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 01/10/2011 3:31 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 1-10-2011 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>

>> exported. So I tried a few times just using them. A quick test shows
>> that 6000 hairs are too much. ;-)
>
> Maybe I am seeing something else, but without Show Population you only
> get the guide hairs I believe, while with Show Population checked, you
> get guide hairs *and* the rest of the Hair Dresser's creation.
>

That's why I wrote somewhen. This was back when the hair room was 
introduced.

I was also wrong about 6000 hairs being too much. My problem was the 
PoseRay settings. I needed to set Root diameter to 0.0002.
Just playing about, I've exported a mesh with 16000 hairs and get not 
bad results. Although I managed to crash RC3 when I tried to load the 
mesh file into the editor.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1-10-2011 16:53, Stephen wrote:

> That's why I wrote somewhen. This was back when the hair room was
> introduced.
>
> I was also wrong about 6000 hairs being too much. My problem was the
> PoseRay settings. I needed to set Root diameter to 0.0002.
> Just playing about, I've exported a mesh with 16000 hairs and get not
> bad results. Although I managed to crash RC3 when I tried to load the
> mesh file into the editor.
>
I think we need to make a compromise between a very large number of fine 
hairs (= very heavy data file) and fewer, somewhat thicker hairs (= 
smaller data file). I have been mainly exploring the latter option, 
which implies the search for a convincing hair texture.

Here is an example, with a 300+Mb data file and a simple grey pigment.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'poserfiguretest.png' (565 KB)

Preview of image 'poserfiguretest.png'

On 02/10/2011 8:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>
> I think we need to make a compromise between a very large number of fine
> hairs (= very heavy data file) and fewer, somewhat thicker hairs (=
> smaller data file). I have been mainly exploring the latter option,
> which implies the search for a convincing hair texture.
>


shortly. ;-)

> Here is an example, with a 300+Mb data file and a simple grey pigment.
>


his company any time soon.

Here is one I did yesterday with a hair density of 30000 (24500 hairs) 
715 MB.
All textures are defaults.
Now for curly and longer hair.

Thanks for letting me know about this.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'grownhair01e1_.jpg' (181 KB)

Preview of image 'grownhair01e1_.jpg'

On 2-10-2011 9:34, Stephen wrote:

> his company any time soon.
>
> Here is one I did yesterday with a hair density of 30000 (24500 hairs)
> 715 MB.
> All textures are defaults.
> Now for curly and longer hair.
>
> Thanks for letting me know about this.

This is looking very good Stephen! Finer and more hairs is of course 
better in close up. At a distance, one should be able to get away with 
lower density... That might be the choice to make when building a scene.

In any case, Poseray is handling the hairs quite nicely now, though I 
would like to see some improvement on the handling of the different hair 
files generated. There appears to be some confusion with the name-giving 
which should be more straightforward and directly related to the 
original names. I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 02/10/2011 9:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is looking very good Stephen!

Thanks

> Finer and more hairs is of course
> better in close up. At a distance, one should be able to get away with
> lower density... That might be the choice to make when building a scene.
>

As you say. :-)
For scenes the least that you can get away with the better. There is 
enough demand on system resources without adding large meshes.

> In any case, Poseray is handling the hairs quite nicely now, though I
> would like to see some improvement on the handling of the different hair
> files generated. There appears to be some confusion with the name-giving
> which should be more straightforward and directly related to the
> original names.

I noticed that.

> I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.

Not a bad idea.

BTW I'm still using PoseRay v3.12.2 as the current Beta forces the use 
of sRGB Colours. Unfortunately this is not compatible with Bishop3D and 
I don't want to take the time out to explore the colour spaces ATM

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2011 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>> I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.
>
> Not a bad idea.
>
> BTW I'm still using PoseRay v3.12.2 as the current Beta forces the use
> of sRGB Colours. Unfortunately this is not compatible with Bishop3D and
> I don't want to take the time out to explore the colour spaces ATM
>

FlyerX told me that rgb/srgb will be optional in the next beta release.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 02/10/2011 12:18 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 2-10-2011 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>>> I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.
>>
>> Not a bad idea.
>>
>> BTW I'm still using PoseRay v3.12.2 as the current Beta forces the use
>> of sRGB Colours. Unfortunately this is not compatible with Bishop3D and
>> I don't want to take the time out to explore the colour spaces ATM
>>
>
> FlyerX told me that rgb/srgb will be optional in the next beta release.
>
Good, that suits me. :-D


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message