Lamont was kind enough to put together .PDF versions of the tutorials. I will upload those when I get home.
I also got an action from a colleague of mine Teddy Bergsman, who put together a nice little action to get the "cavity map" from the normal quickly so you wouldn't have to use XNormal for that one. Will upload that as soon as I get home as well.
Lamont was kind enough to put together .PDF versions of the tutorials. I will upload those when I get home.
I also got an action from a colleague of mine Teddy Bergsman, who put together a nice little action to get the "cavity map" from the normal quickly so you wouldn't have to use XNormal for that one. Will upload that as soon as I get home as well.
Brilliant!... Will pass these around the office today.
If I have a 16bit image and I convert it to an 8bit image isn't that going to CAUSE banding?
I understand that 16bit will give you smoother gradients than 8bit because your range is bigger, but if you convert from 16bit to 8bit your going to shrink that range and cause banding.
Where as if you had started in 8bit photoshop would account for the 8bit range and do its best to work in within that restriction.
I'm wondering what exactly i'm missing. I can't seam to re-produce your results.
If I have a 16bit image and I convert it to an 8bit image isn't that going to CAUSE banding?
I understand that 16bit will give you smoother gradients than 8bit because your range is bigger, but if you convert from 16bit to 8bit your going to shrink that range and cause banding.
Where as if you had started in 8bit photoshop would account for the 8bit range and do its best to work in within that restriction.
I'm wondering what exactly i'm missing. I can't seam to re-produce your results.
If you have the nvidia normal map filter you can generate the same normal from each file there. (Like using 9x9 on filter type and a scale of perhaps 128 or so to really make it easy to see). If you now generate a normal for each of those two files and then convert the 16bit image to 8 bits you can instantly see a big difference.
The thing is, I used 16bits per channel already when I created the gradient there so it was a more perfect gradient than what photshop would try creating if I was working in 8bit. As you said it would try and make up for the lack of image depth. When I later go from 16bits and convert it to 8bits the image will be maintained a lot better. I use this on a regular basis at work when I create things like windows with a lot of cubemapping that I want some "bumpiness" in.
Thanks for the reply Phil. Yeah I was able to re-produce your tests. It's the act of converting the gradient to a normal map that causes the banding to become so visible. It's weird that photohsop maintains going from a higher range to a lower range better than it maintains just staying in a fixed range.
You would think all their algorithms would look at the range your working in and do the best they can to create seamless interoplations of values.
It seams like its realy the normal map filter that's the culpret here. It just likes to have a higher range to work with, and then photoshop does its best to preserve the gradients when you go down, and while you do get some banding this way the visual results are suprior to staying in 8bit.
I tried recreating the normal map you get from the gradients you posted up but for some reason I'm getting a pinch in the middle and nothing too smooth. I'm using the xNormal filter in Photoshop...maybe I should be using the Nvidia filter instead?
Oh and obviously the normal seems to be inverted O_O
I tried recreating the normal map you get from the gradients you posted up but for some reason I'm getting a pinch in the middle and nothing too smooth. I'm using the xNormal filter in Photoshop...maybe I should be using the Nvidia filter instead?
Oh and obviously the normal seems to be inverted O_O
I was getting similar results with the Xnormal filter. I don't like it as much as the Nvidia filter, but since the nvidia doesnt work on Photoshop 64-bit it's the only alternative left.
Minotaur: Yeah same here with the 64-bit issue. I even looked at some threads on it and apparently it doesn't work for people (Nvidia filter on 64-bit photoshop machines).
As for the inverted normal, change the swizzle on the y from a y+ to a y-. I'm still getting the pinching in the middle though O_o
Ah yeah sorry I think I may have exaggerated the intensity when I said to use 128 there hehe. I was simply trying to make it obvious if you look at the difference between doing this and using 8bits per channel. But yeah you'd want a gradient that isn't totally linear to get a more sphere like shape
It brings up some more examples and info on really working in 16 bit instead of 8 and why it's/it will be preferable. The only downsides at the moment of not working in 16 bit mode IMO is that you lack a few options in Photoshop such as surface and smart blur, which I use quite frequently. Also the file sizes of course will be bigger. But I already work quite a lot in 16 bits per channel when I do textures at work, especially when working with more clean materials that are heavily dependent on env cubemaps.
@PhillipK
I just stumbled on your modular rock tut on another site and it looks like they are trying to pass it off as their work. (watermarked images etc.)
Did you know about this? http://blog.bttrove.org/1643
@PhillipK
I just stumbled on your modular rock tut on another site and it looks like they are trying to pass it off as their work. (watermarked images etc.)
Did you know about this? http://blog.bttrove.org/1643
This is really shady. They license the material to their userbase although most of he material I've seen floating arround the net. In addition they state that all the material is under copyright. (Which is true) But without stating the artist who owns the copyright they imply it is theirs.
Also they deny their users to redistribute, modify the material although they did the same and are not in the position to give licenses to anything.
If they haven't asked you to put this material up I would kindly talk to them. main problöem seems: They are taking all tutorial material they can get their hands on and use it for their page and credit. Makes me reallly angry.
hey phillip, quick question regarding your mesh here http://www.philipk.net/tutorials/modular_rocks/modular_rock3.jpg , I know you clearly stated that you used the above techniques to do it in your tutorial, so sorry if i sound stupid, i'm still curious in asking whether you modelled that mesh based off a texture or what? - as that seems like it would be a pain in the but to do! Did you sculpt that one inparticular? Would you mind quickly explaining thanks XD.
First, thanks (even though I'm REALLY late to reply on this) for spotting that site. I usually don't mind it too much if it'd just be a mistake but this looks like they actually removed my name even. Thanks
Snow:
Absolutely, someone actually had pretty much that question, I really ought to add this to that tutorial in some way. I see it can be a bit difficult to see just looking at that, but I did essentially use the same technique there. I tried to explain it very roughly in that thread: http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1222595&postcount=4
I hope that will help you. If not, feel free to ask more
I also hope people don't mind threads getting bumped up from the semi-grave here.
Now that this thread is high up anyway I'm gonna go ahead and ask you. Could you make a tutorial on how you tackle leave textures? I personally have alot of problems with those.
That is if you are looking for any suggestions on new tutorials of course
Replies
~t
Lamont was kind enough to put together .PDF versions of the tutorials. I will upload those when I get home.
I also got an action from a colleague of mine Teddy Bergsman, who put together a nice little action to get the "cavity map" from the normal quickly so you wouldn't have to use XNormal for that one. Will upload that as soon as I get home as well.
Brilliant!... Will pass these around the office today.
~t
Thanks! and thanks for the post on TCG!
You deserve a medal.
If I have a 16bit image and I convert it to an 8bit image isn't that going to CAUSE banding?
I understand that 16bit will give you smoother gradients than 8bit because your range is bigger, but if you convert from 16bit to 8bit your going to shrink that range and cause banding.
Where as if you had started in 8bit photoshop would account for the 8bit range and do its best to work in within that restriction.
I'm wondering what exactly i'm missing. I can't seam to re-produce your results.
Ah, yes, I uploaded two .tifs with a black and white gradient.
http://philipk.net/tutorials/8bit.tif
http://philipk.net/tutorials/16bit.tif
If you have the nvidia normal map filter you can generate the same normal from each file there. (Like using 9x9 on filter type and a scale of perhaps 128 or so to really make it easy to see). If you now generate a normal for each of those two files and then convert the 16bit image to 8 bits you can instantly see a big difference.
The thing is, I used 16bits per channel already when I created the gradient there so it was a more perfect gradient than what photshop would try creating if I was working in 8bit. As you said it would try and make up for the lack of image depth. When I later go from 16bits and convert it to 8bits the image will be maintained a lot better. I use this on a regular basis at work when I create things like windows with a lot of cubemapping that I want some "bumpiness" in.
I hope I made myself understandable there :S
You would think all their algorithms would look at the range your working in and do the best they can to create seamless interoplations of values.
It seams like its realy the normal map filter that's the culpret here. It just likes to have a higher range to work with, and then photoshop does its best to preserve the gradients when you go down, and while you do get some banding this way the visual results are suprior to staying in 8bit.
I tried recreating the normal map you get from the gradients you posted up but for some reason I'm getting a pinch in the middle and nothing too smooth. I'm using the xNormal filter in Photoshop...maybe I should be using the Nvidia filter instead?
Oh and obviously the normal seems to be inverted O_O
I was getting similar results with the Xnormal filter. I don't like it as much as the Nvidia filter, but since the nvidia doesnt work on Photoshop 64-bit it's the only alternative left.
As for the inverted normal, change the swizzle on the y from a y+ to a y-. I'm still getting the pinching in the middle though O_o
I'm glad you were able to reproduce this. Incidentally I got handed a very interesting .pdf from this year's siggraph. A presentation from Crytek on this matter kind of. A very interesting read for sure!
http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2010/Kaplanyan-CryEngine3%28SIGGRAPH%202010%20Advanced%20RealTime%20Rendering%20Course%29.pdf
It brings up some more examples and info on really working in 16 bit instead of 8 and why it's/it will be preferable. The only downsides at the moment of not working in 16 bit mode IMO is that you lack a few options in Photoshop such as surface and smart blur, which I use quite frequently. Also the file sizes of course will be bigger. But I already work quite a lot in 16 bits per channel when I do textures at work, especially when working with more clean materials that are heavily dependent on env cubemaps.
I just stumbled on your modular rock tut on another site and it looks like they are trying to pass it off as their work. (watermarked images etc.)
Did you know about this?
http://blog.bttrove.org/1643
This is really shady. They license the material to their userbase although most of he material I've seen floating arround the net. In addition they state that all the material is under copyright. (Which is true) But without stating the artist who owns the copyright they imply it is theirs.
Also they deny their users to redistribute, modify the material although they did the same and are not in the position to give licenses to anything.
If they haven't asked you to put this material up I would kindly talk to them. main problöem seems: They are taking all tutorial material they can get their hands on and use it for their page and credit. Makes me reallly angry.
First, thanks (even though I'm REALLY late to reply on this) for spotting that site. I usually don't mind it too much if it'd just be a mistake but this looks like they actually removed my name even. Thanks
Snow:
Absolutely, someone actually had pretty much that question, I really ought to add this to that tutorial in some way. I see it can be a bit difficult to see just looking at that, but I did essentially use the same technique there. I tried to explain it very roughly in that thread:
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1222595&postcount=4
I hope that will help you. If not, feel free to ask more
I also hope people don't mind threads getting bumped up from the semi-grave here.
That is if you are looking for any suggestions on new tutorials of course
"Me learnd how wood make