Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Z brush?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Z brush?

    This program seems preaty cool, however Im wondering how well it can handle really complex texturing capabilities. Some of the work thats been done with it looks preaty nice. whats your take on it?

  • #2
    It's a pretty nice package. It competes with Maxon's BodyPaint and are kind of interesting in that they allow you to paint directly on the object.

    However, don't believe the hype. To get really good results, you still have to spend a lot of time working out the UV maps (even though they all claim to have some sort of automatic layout wizard). If you don't create your custom UV maps, you still end up with considerable stretching and even some seams.

    The real benefit of these 3D painting applications is they allow you to create bump, color, and whatever else texture you want at the same time. However, to do that you either have to create your own brushes (which often takes more time than its worth); or you have to use the built-in brushes - which means your texture looks like everyone elses' who uses the program.

    It's also fairly intuitive to be able to paint right on the model.

    And as always; the great artists create great stuff with it; but if someone doesn't know textures, doesn't know how to paint or is 'artistically challenged' the software does nothing.

    I own BodyPaint; and quite like using it since it interfaces seamlessly with Maya, C4D, Lightwave and Max. However, often times, I just find it quicker to paint my textures in Photoshop in the first place.

    Just my $.02.

    Comment


    • #3
      latley thats what Im struggling with right now is how to paint well with skin textures and what not. Where should one go to asertain some form of training in this (aside a painting class)?

      Comment


      • #4
        Painting class. Getting skin tones right is really about understanding the color and layers of skin colors. Painting class (especially life painting) is the best way to learn how to paint people textures.

        In reality, skin tones are some of the most difficult to create textures for. Skin actually makes heavy use of Subsurface Scattering (the way light actually penetrates a surface and then scatters to light the object a bit from within (think milk vs white paint). Steven Stahlberg has some interesting ramp shader techniques to create the kind of large flat highlight that skin has - but its still a challenge. So don't fret too much about it. Texture artists are not in the biggest demand (one texture artist can do quite a bit). So you don't necessarily need ot have a huge amount of texture work in your portfolio.

        Students who are most successful at it are students who have taken some painting classes. Most studios hire texture artists who are indeed painters, or have had a considerable amount of painting experience.

        Having said all that - if you are a good painter in Photoshop; that's really the best.

        Do make sure that when you are working on skin tone based textures that you surround yourself with lots and lots of research. lots and lots of photographs will help you really find the tones that are important. if you're trying to do it off the top of your head, the tones rarely match reality.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tried out Zbrush 2

          not sure if this questin has been answered yet but, I tried out Zbrush and am extremely pleased with the results, work flow is so much faster and so much more detailed, but with a program like this, would it be considered cheating, rather then using the usual trusty side kick, Photoshop? cause primarily its for bump maps, I mean its not like we're gonn animate anything modeled so intensely through Z and imported to Maya or C4d right?
          It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.
          -Tyler Durdan

          Comment


          • #6
            I dunno, after playing a game like doom 3, it may come in some dandy handy work in a future time after all, I dunno though

            Comment


            • #7
              Hey proffessor, I understand uv's better and frankly, Im really puzzled as to why the software makes it so dificult to use. All it is is making the polygone in the 3d output window look the exact same way in the UV window. In other words, if I have a poly with a point askewed in one dirrection, but uniformed like a cube, if I map that one poly completly uniformed, it streches, but if it looks the exact same way in the 3d port, it doesnt. Why doesnt the software simply map the UV's with distorting them and keep them the same quardinates as the 3d output window? I mean, theres allmost no point in stretching and binding the UV's to death, rather just make them the same shapes as the polygons and then stitch them without having the UV points move... would seem preaty obvious to me but it could be more complicated

              Comment


              • #8
                it may be one of those, nobody's been able to do that yet. all these programs are still based on good ol' MATH. while I understand quite a bit of the mathmatical side of what's happening on the screen, I'm still glad that some things work because they do.

                Got a gamertag? check out the thread - http://www.cgauiwtalk.com/showthread.php?t=4828

                PS, This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Will, just saw a tutorial on Z-Brush 2 for an Angler fish, you're right, some really cool stuff man. What is your take on it Mr. Watkins?
                  JCF3D

                  Spiderwoodstudios

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Looks pretty nice. Because of its use of Normal Maps it can be tremendously powerful. Lots of people are a a'buzz about it in the industry. I've talked with people who use it with just about every other 3d app you can think of.

                    I'm not tremendously interested in the modeling end of things, so haven't really used it enough to pass any sort of meaningful critique along though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I used it when it was first coming out in v.1, even before it made use of ZSpheres. I have to say that if you haven't used it you should definitely try it out and see for yourself. There are demo versions on the site. The ability to edit these meshes and things (I guess I'm talking more along the lines of modeling than texturing, sorry) so easily and on multires levels, etc is awesome... It's just a really cool program to try out, and decide for yourself. I have yet to use it since like... version 1.55, but if I can get my hands on it anytime soon for a reasonable price im definitely going to go for it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        New feature videos for 2.5. Looks interesting but can't say I like zbrush too much. Don't care much for the workflow. Did they ever fix the alt camera navigation? Anyways, painting directly on polys does look cool but I don't think that will export. Photoshop like layering system for 3d models seems like a good idea, would open up the door for experimenting without worry of destryoying your mesh. Yep really cool stuff but I'm sure there are still plenty of issues moving the models and textures to another 3d app..

                        http://206.145.80.239/zbc/showthread.php?t=036912
                        箴 言 18:12
                        敗 壞 之 先 , 人 心 驕 傲 ; 尊 榮 以 前 , 必 有 謙 卑 。

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I honestly see no problem with the whole transfering texture and model, its the same as making a normal map, yer gonna have to export the map and just export the model as an obj, All Uvs are retained you just gotta slap on the textrue thats exported to the material you create in whatever program yer gonna port to.
                          It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.
                          -Tyler Durdan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Will
                            I honestly see no problem with the whole transfering texture and model, its the same as making a normal map, yer gonna have to export the map and just export the model as an obj, All Uvs are retained you just gotta slap on the textrue thats exported to the material you create in whatever program yer gonna port to.
                            Easier said than done. Although it is not hard to get moderate results that would look satisfactory in a rendering. Getting what you made in zbrush to appear exactly as it looked in zbrush is not easy. On a side by side comparison between the zbrush model and the displacement rendered model it is not terribly difficult to pick up the discrepancies for the finer details. and if your mesh is nothing but finer details then the displacement issues are more apparent. There is no perfect export setting that works for all meshes despite what is advertised by pixologic. It all changes on a to case basis. Take what you know and apply it again and again. I'm sure you will find it is not as easy as you make it sound. :)

                            The other problem with exporting in 2.5 will probably deal with painting polygons. That is not based on UVs. As far as I know there isn't an application out there that supports polygon based texture images. Painting polygons is a three dimensional sollution whereas UVs are a 2d dimmensional sollution for texture images.
                            箴 言 18:12
                            敗 壞 之 先 , 人 心 驕 傲 ; 尊 榮 以 前 , 必 有 謙 卑 。

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X