Common practice for HQ wood, tiles, bricks?

[Playdo]

With top end renders of wooden flooring, tiles and brickwork, what's common practice for the best result? ie. are the tiles modeled individually, mortar modeled seperately and material applied ... or is a bump map or a displacement map used on a plane?

 

 

 

[Playdo]

Anyone? I'm referring to close up shots that look realistic?

[BrianKitts]

attention to specular maps will set your renders apart from the ordinary. good bump and diffuse mapping are the norm, but the attention to the specular is one that's skipped by most.

[WAcky]

also try the floor generator at http://www.cg-source.com. a great tool and it's free.

[Playdo]

Thanks for the info.

 

That's a very nice looking script WAcky.

 

Brian, are you saying that a bump map will produce sufficient depth like shown in the 1st 2 images posted, and that there's no need to use a normal or displacement map or to model pieces individually? (I'm referring to the gaps between the pieces.)

[neko]

i'm not sure i'm at an expert level when it comes to materials / textures, but i've always considered this a question of LOD (level of detail).

 

if i'm working on a smaller space (bathroom, elevator lobby) where the pattern is more obvious/intricate, i'll actually model the tiles or at least the grout lines. i find it easier to then create variance in my tiles.

 

at a greater distance i would always concentrate on the mapping.

 

brian - care to elaborate a little about your specular mapping concept ?

[Dave Buckley]

yes the bump mapping will give you sufficient depth unless you are looking for extreme depth where displacement would be preferred.

 

i consider displacement as 'bump on steroids'

 

it uses more memory from what i believe so if its not needed then don't use it.

 

with regards to specular mapping - again its something i'm no expert in either but i've just started using specular maps at all and they do make a great difference.

 

go over to mrmaterials.com or vraymaterials.de, dependant on your renderer of choice. download some materials and take a look at the specular maps.

 

i reccommend the free full res arroway textures supplied on mrmaterials.com

 

also check out leigh van der byl's site (google the name) and there is a lot of info provided on good texturing

 

hope it helps

[DanGrover]

It's also worth remembering that a lot of the really nice renders will have "real" reflections (as opposed to just specular highlights, though typically the map would be the same for both). Ramp up those glossies.

[mattclinch]

normal maps instead of bump maps.

[Dave Buckley]

care to elaborate matt? (i thyought you would have anticipated that question by now ) i was always under the impression that normal maps was a gaming thing?

[leoA4D]

Normal maps give a look more like displaced texture than bump maps to express the wood texture. If you are wanting a soft and satin appearance like the pics above (resulting from multiple sandings using coarse to fine paper and steel wooling between clear coats) then maps and displacement will not be necessary.

 

For close up views, I model individual stone tiles and wood planks and use a random map applicator script (C4D). Individual planks allows for control over joints and edge detailing. The same goes for stone tiling plus it allows for controlling the depth of the grout joint.

[DanGrover]

Normal maps are just bump maps that allow for the appearance of a bump in any normal direction, not just at the normal. That's the problem with bump maps - everything appears to come "out" of the bump at exactly 90 degrees to the surface of the poly. That's why normal maps are full colour - the three colour channels correspond to the local XYZ space, as opposed to the single channel for bumps. I think they're only known as "game" things because whilst CG can jump from bumps to displacement maps when it needs to, games can't, so they're need for normals are greater than ours. That said, normal maps are great.

[mattclinch]

Normal maps are just bump maps that allow for the appearance of a bump in any normal direction, not just at the normal. That's the problem with bump maps - everything appears to come "out" of the bump at exactly 90 degrees to the surface of the poly. That's why normal maps are full colour - the three colour channels correspond to the local XYZ space, as opposed to the single channel for bumps. I think they're only known as "game" things because whilst CG can jump from bumps to displacement maps when it needs to, games can't, so they're need for normals are greater than ours. That said, normal maps are great.

 

yep. thank you. +1 for the greatness. essentially getting the look of displacement, without the calculation time.

[WAcky]

Normal maps just seem to be a bit more powerful than bump maps. They seem to be able to show more depth. I love them.

[Dave Buckley]

well this is all good to know, and thanks for explanation dan, makes sense.

 

so i guess the next question (should i start a new thread for this, i guess not as it will help the original question i guess)

 

is . . .

 

How does one create a normal map based on a diffuse colour map, without the use of thrid party apps like crazybump/pixplant etc?

[mattclinch]

well this is all good to know, and thanks for explanation dan, makes sense.

 

so i guess the next question (should i start a new thread for this, i guess not as it will help the original question i guess)

 

is . . .

 

How does one create a normal map based on a diffuse colour map, without the use of thrid party apps like crazybump/pixplant etc?

 

you use crazybump... oh....

 

and it can generate a normal map from a bump map.

[WAcky]

Well you could make a greyscale bump map from the diffuse map then convert it to a normal map using this free photoshop plugin. But I would highly recommened Pixplant if you can afford it as its well worth it.

[Dave Buckley]

haha cheers guys, exactly the answers i was expecting

[BrianKitts]

just getting back to this thread after the weekend, most of the questions got answers but I figured I'd add to it....

 

Brian, are you saying that a bump map will produce sufficient depth like shown in the 1st 2 images posted, and that there's no need to use a normal or displacement map or to model pieces individually? (I'm referring to the gaps between the pieces.)

 

Bump maps work well for say up to about 1/8" bump. Once you start to go beyond a .25" I switch to displacement. Also it should be noted that bump maps work the best in direct light, they don't work as well in shadows, so sometimes I will use displacement in cases like getting joint patterns on the north face of a building for an exterior rendering.

 

brian - care to elaborate a little about your specular mapping concept ?

Specular mapping is no different than the concept of a bump, opacity, refraction map, etc... It's a black and white map controlling where the effect is rendered and where it is not. I should note in case anyone doesn't know that specular mapping is the term to refer to a reflection map. It's great for breaking up reflections and creating a more natural reflection. With the exception of glass reflections normally aren't 100% smooth and perfect.

 

Attached is a crop from one of my renders showing a floor I did for a project with the maps that were used to create it. The ceramic tiles had a very textured glazing to it that really broke up the reflection, best way to create that was with the specular map. Original textures where 2k tall, obviously sized down to show them all together.

 

normal maps instead of bump maps.

Normal maps rock, and yes I vote for the use of pixplant as well. One thing that should be noted in case it comes up is how to use normal maps in max since there is not normal map slot. Normal maps in max require a "normal bump" map in the bump map slot and assign your normal map within that "normal bump" map. (not really as confusing as it sounds)

Edited March 22, 2010 by BrianKitts

[Playdo]

I take it that a displacement map is identical to a bump map, as it just displays greyscale depth values. So you would use a bump map in the displacement slot, to displace?

[mattclinch]

I take it that a displacement map is identical to a bump map, as it just displays greyscale depth values. So you would use a bump map in the displacement slot, to displace?

 

correct.

[Playdo]

Thanks. Matt, can I ask, in your furniture visualisation section of your site, are you using an Arch and Design or a M/S/R material for the floor plane?

[mattclinch]

its just an A&D shader.

[BrianKitts]

So you would use a bump map in the displacement slot, to displace?

 

Unless you happen to be rendering with Vray in which case you'll find that adding a VrayDisplacement modifier directly to your object and controlling the amount of displacement that way will gave you far better control. Being able to set the displacement amount based on dimensional depth is great.

[Peter M. Gruhn]

> That's the problem with bump maps - everything appears to come "out" of the bump at

> exactly 90 degrees to the surface of the poly. That's why normal maps are full colour -

> the three colour channels correspond to the local XYZ space, as opposed to the single

 

I think I'm going to disagree with this.

 

A bump map itself does encode only depth information, but by checking a texel's neighbours you learn what direction and how far to distort the normal. Both options allow for angling the surface in arbitrary directions. Normal maps are just better at it.

 

> essentially getting the look of displacement, without the calculation time.

 

And this too.

 

A normal map can give you deeper looking, finer, crisper detail than a bump map. The thing displacement provides that neither bump nor normal can is occlusion. If you get your head down low the grout hides behind the raised tiles. And attendant shadowing. If you don't need the parallax/occlusion effect of displacement then try to stay away - it's expensive. If you do, look at your particular situation and ask if you might be better off just modelling those bits. Maybe run a test.

 

You can also get normal maps by building example geometry and rendering to texture. I've been doing that a lot on this project now and liking the results.