Most monitors couldn't handle 16bit if they wanted to, hehe...which is a real shame, considering todays "wonders of consumer technology". However, most apps are not clever enough to do proper dithering. More often than not we have mild gradients that go from 40% gray to 60% gray, for example. It could be brightness values from 100 to 160, which means 60 different value that are spread over let's say 800 pixels from top to bottom. If you do not dither those values, you will be able to see at least 10 recognizable bandings. Ugly stuff. Once they are dithered, they vanish nearly completely. Photoshop CS will do that decently well, when you convert a nice 16bit image with such gradient into 8bit. A depth image is in essence the same, just not from top to bottom, but from front to back. Often there is enough variation to make it appear insignificant to take advantage of 16bit, but if you wanted some really nice results at high quality, you'll be happy to know of the option. That's all, really. I might well be someone burned by having to do print images, which are even worse than movie effects when it comes to resolution and unforgiving details, but since it won't mean any trouble for me, I take advantage of the habits even with "little" things such as preparing sculptris snapshots for display!
But you're right, there's certainly no life-threatening need. For those, who can go for it, I still recommend it.
well,what can i say...thanks for asnwers its make more clear for me now,for taron post i must use same translator becose i dont uderstend half of it xD i have one more question to taron, what ver. of photoshop you use? i really dont want to make me life more complicated with photoshop ;p and you tut form first page is just easy, if i can not copy my brush image form foult of photoshop that i download ver that you use(some trail or something) thanks banjaxedmdt for instructions btw
Most monitors couldn't handle 16bit if they wanted to, hehe...which is a real shame, considering todays "wonders of consumer technology".
16-bit contains more values than your human eyes can see, it makes no sense for a screen to display all that because there is no reason for it.
What 16-bit gives you are two things: 1. More data to work with making it good for displacement and depth passes. 2. A wide enough exposure range that is adjustable in post and enough info to make sure any math is correct, which is exactly why 16-half float is the preferred render format in the industry. 32-bit in most cases is overkill whereas 8-bit is never enough to play with in compositing. 8-bit however is perfectly fine for most textures. Of course you can't get the most out of any of this without a proper understanding of gamma and color space, but that's another topic for another day .
Anyways I'm a believer in doing things right from the start. There's been a recent trend of handling all your rendering in Zbrush or Mudbox and eyeball things in Photoshop or AE. Some people have still produced good imagery this way, but it always turns out a little tacky. Ultimately it is your decisions to make, but I strongly suggest anyone reading this to learn whatever render engine and compositing software is available to you. The amount of freedom you get is well worth it:
(an example from one of my student projects)
The more you learn about how things are done correctly, the more you realize how much wasted time and effort any alternative methods are. Cutting corners may save you time learning, but in the long run you are putting in double the work for a less than stellar result.
Last Edit: Jun 10, 2010 18:44:51 GMT 1 by crispy4004
Crispy, thank you, that really wasn't necessary. Aside from that, those lines that go "16bit color /more than the human eye can see". It's not about the colors, it's about soft brightness ranges, complex shapes in lowcontrast areas and a variety that is created by color and luminance. The human eye couldn't distinguish between two blocks of one value difference, but it can very well understand the benefit of greater complexity. 8bit shows that something's missing more often than not, for example. Just don't hurl around with these clever lines that some dude brands and then everyone uses as wisdom of the ages...pfff...
Anyway, thanks again!
As for the rest, ah...i suppose i'm a little unclear whether that's in favor of my argument or against the whole thing from the ground up...don't know. But I'm sure it's all good.
kubix: I'm using Photoshop CS4, but any CS will do, really. By now I really only use photoshop for what it was originally intended for, tweaking images. That's why I barely care about many of the other gifts that come with any of the versions. Just 16bit handling is a really important innovation.
I'm sure you can find even better than that...hahaha...argh. But yeah...I have a feeling that Tomas may make this sort of stuff a lot easier, too. If not, I might write a silly little tool you can use. Hmmmm..... gotta check out the TIF format first, but then, yeah... fun, fun, fun!
Speaking of 'shopping a depth buffer, here's another trick:
-Open a depth image -Duplicate layer -Set blending mode to "grain extract", resulting picture should be 50% gray and nothing else -Now use filters/blur/selective gaussian blur, set max delta at 25, blur radius to 75 or so (depends on resolution). -Flatten layers -Use colors/levels to remove highlights (sometimes it looks better with them, depends on picture really) -Another selective blur (to remove "banding" from previous step) -Multiply with actual picture -There, ambient occlusion
(I used GIMP here. Photoshop doesn't have "grain extract", you'll have to invert the top layer and use "vivid light" blend mode. Everything else should be the same)
AHHHH... that's a good one to bring up! <Getting plates and vases thrown at me by Tomas>... me:"I didn't say WHICH idea, yet, man!" <Now he's holding a softball in his left hand and a bowling ball in the right, waiting...> me:"to use Gimp for Ambient Occlusion, that's brilliant!" <I'm catching the softball.>
;D ...cool, worstplayer, very interesting. I wonder if there's some way to coax that out of PS, too?!
I saw that, downloaded and installed 1.02 - seems cool. Haven't yet found any info/instruction in Sculptris about how to use these features. I see the percentage dials and played with them, not telling any difference when I do a Sculptris render. Guess I'm about as dense as a brick.