I've moved to using 6.1 now and i am encountering a problem with the clip sop. My setup includes starting off with bringing a bgeo in via file sop. I then clip the base model in half, do a bunch of editing and detail modeling and mirror back over.
This all has been working great in 6, but as of today and using 6.1, that first clip sop is not working the same as before and thus changing all the later editing and alterations for detail in to a mess. I have tried other methods. such as having the clip sop only output above and below groups. Converting them to point groups via group sop and then using delete sop to get rid of the appropriate group. I've even just tried making a group based on selection and deleting them. All these methods end up screwing the model in the end big time because of pt number changes.
So why is the clip sop acting so different now? Am i doing something wrong here? Here are some images to explain whats going on:
Houdini 6 clip sop: all nice and pretty…
Houdini 6.1 clip sop: not so nice and pretty…
And finally, what my used to be full featured baby is now….
Any help is appreciated… Thanks guys..
Dave
Found 405 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Technical Discussion » clip sop different in 6.1?
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Technical Discussion » 8-bit vs 16-bit shaders
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Technical Discussion » 8-bit vs 16-bit shaders
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
ahh ok.. that makes sense now for the floating point images. is there a limit with floating point then? Obviously, there are with bit depths.. but with fp, couldn't a channel value be be 6.1 or 6.15 or 6.153 etc etc and get more infinitely detailed?
and great info michaelC. very handy stuff to know.
thanks you guys.
and great info michaelC. very handy stuff to know.
thanks you guys.
Technical Discussion » 8-bit vs 16-bit shaders
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
thanks jason. all of that really helped a lot. i wasn't even aware of the bit depth mantra commands. a few questions if you don't mind…
1. If i use the -b (16) mantra command, do i still need to specify the bit depth in the image options next to the chosen format? And where/how can i turn off the dithering?
2. Can you explain the whole integer vs floating point and how it applies to the image quality/bit depths. I understand how bit depths work and how that relates to image quality and the amount of colors available to manipulate. But I don't completely get how FP relates to bit depth and image quality. The only past understanding i have of FP vs. integer is performance and speed related issues with processing. So i'm a little confused when you said that the ideal situation was to have fp textures rendered to fp output images. Didn't know how to apply that to my understanding of only bitdepths. Does FP refer to 32 bit only?
3. Since my understanding of the whole FP isn't very good, this question might be useless, but doesn't Photoshop 8 (CS) now have a lot more 16-bit support with layers and tools and such? Don't know if thats what you meant because, once again, im confused about the whole fp aspect.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the help…
Dave
1. If i use the -b (16) mantra command, do i still need to specify the bit depth in the image options next to the chosen format? And where/how can i turn off the dithering?
2. Can you explain the whole integer vs floating point and how it applies to the image quality/bit depths. I understand how bit depths work and how that relates to image quality and the amount of colors available to manipulate. But I don't completely get how FP relates to bit depth and image quality. The only past understanding i have of FP vs. integer is performance and speed related issues with processing. So i'm a little confused when you said that the ideal situation was to have fp textures rendered to fp output images. Didn't know how to apply that to my understanding of only bitdepths. Does FP refer to 32 bit only?
but right now photoshop doesn't allow much image manipulation in any other bit depth.
3. Since my understanding of the whole FP isn't very good, this question might be useless, but doesn't Photoshop 8 (CS) now have a lot more 16-bit support with layers and tools and such? Don't know if thats what you meant because, once again, im confused about the whole fp aspect.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the help…
Dave
Technical Discussion » 8-bit vs 16-bit shaders
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Thanks for all that info J.C.
Sorry about the bad description in my original post. I guess i just used the term shader as a more general wording (referring to both bitmaped textures and procedural) and assumed it would make sense after i started talking about resolutions and bit depths.
But you brought up some good points about the whole output display that i needed to take into account (it will be on a tv). I was just trying to figure out if i should use 16-bit textures and render out 16-bit image sequences if i plan on compositing in 16-bit (which i do so i can make better adjustments). The final output after comp will be in 8 bit since the output is tv. But I didn't know how i should approach the texturing and rendering part if i plan on comping in 16-bit.
As far as the tga and tif output goes, that was from photoshop. I was taking pictures of textures with a digital camera and capturing them in a raw format. Then brought them in to PS, tweaked, and saved as all the different options for tga and tiff. Why the one format of tga came out so bad, i don't know. And i was leaning towards tiff for metadata reasons (so i could keep information of my camera settings, dates, and times). But I wasn't aware of and upcoming legal issues. So I should keep that in mind.
Thanks for all that great info. I need to try out some of that HDR stuff. It sounds like so much fun.
Dave
Sorry about the bad description in my original post. I guess i just used the term shader as a more general wording (referring to both bitmaped textures and procedural) and assumed it would make sense after i started talking about resolutions and bit depths.
But you brought up some good points about the whole output display that i needed to take into account (it will be on a tv). I was just trying to figure out if i should use 16-bit textures and render out 16-bit image sequences if i plan on compositing in 16-bit (which i do so i can make better adjustments). The final output after comp will be in 8 bit since the output is tv. But I didn't know how i should approach the texturing and rendering part if i plan on comping in 16-bit.
As far as the tga and tif output goes, that was from photoshop. I was taking pictures of textures with a digital camera and capturing them in a raw format. Then brought them in to PS, tweaked, and saved as all the different options for tga and tiff. Why the one format of tga came out so bad, i don't know. And i was leaning towards tiff for metadata reasons (so i could keep information of my camera settings, dates, and times). But I wasn't aware of and upcoming legal issues. So I should keep that in mind.
Thanks for all that great info. I need to try out some of that HDR stuff. It sounds like so much fun.
Dave
Technical Discussion » 8-bit vs 16-bit shaders
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
I would tend to think that the difference between the higher bit depths would come in at compositing time when you need to do lots of math operations with them?
that's what I would think as well..
thanks for that deep raster stuff. i also found that if you are rendering out as either TIFF or RLA, you have bit depth options in the standard page. right next to the file format there is a down arrow to get more options. haven't seen that before. RLA can do up to 16. TIFF can handle up to 32.
Technical Discussion » 8-bit vs 16-bit shaders
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Would one benefit from using a 16-bit shader over an 8-bit. Now that Photoshop CS has full 16-bit compatibility, I've been working a lot more in it with my textures. I realize the 16-bit is helping me in PS as far as editing and manipulating goes, but I was wondering how much it was affecting a flattened image being projected as a shader.
I've done a few tests and from my own subjective reasoning, I can find no difference visually between using an 8-bit and 16-bit shader (this is in tif format) unless i am zoomed in far enough to see pixel by pixel (and even at that point I can just tell that they are very slightly different). I also did some testing on tga formats as well (8 bit saved as 16, 24, and 32 bit ‘per pixel’ formats) and these were the results after being applied to a 4x3 grid in Houdini and rendered out at 1280x1024.
_______________________________________________
TGA - 8,8,8 2560x1920 uncompressed
16 bits per pixel - 9,601 KB - terrible banding issues.
24 bits per pixel - 14,401 KB - great image quality
32 bits per pixel - 19,201 KB - great image quality
TIF - 8,8,8 2560x1920 uncompressed
14,414 KB - great image quality
TIF - 16,16,16 2560x1920 uncompressed
28,814 KB - great image quality
_______________________________________________
From what I could see, there seemed to be no difference visually between the last 4 tests (tga 8-24 and 8-32 & tif 8 and tif 16). Now it came between two choices based on file size since they were all practically indistinguishable. Those were the 8-bit TGA saved as 24 bits per pixel and the 8 bit TIF. They were both almost exactly the same size and quality.
So back to my original question…Is it useful at all to use 16-bit shaders over 8-bit? If there are benefits, are they worth double the file size? And if not, do people prefer the TGA format over TIF or vice versa since they are outputting the same quality at the same file size? I was personally leaning towards TIF mainly for its ability to have EXIF info and RAW conversion metadata attached to it while TGA did not.
Any input would be great.
Thanks,
Dave Quirus
P.S. Since I'm on the subject, can Houdini output 16-bit images so I can use that in my compositor while making adjustments?
I've done a few tests and from my own subjective reasoning, I can find no difference visually between using an 8-bit and 16-bit shader (this is in tif format) unless i am zoomed in far enough to see pixel by pixel (and even at that point I can just tell that they are very slightly different). I also did some testing on tga formats as well (8 bit saved as 16, 24, and 32 bit ‘per pixel’ formats) and these were the results after being applied to a 4x3 grid in Houdini and rendered out at 1280x1024.
_______________________________________________
TGA - 8,8,8 2560x1920 uncompressed
16 bits per pixel - 9,601 KB - terrible banding issues.
24 bits per pixel - 14,401 KB - great image quality
32 bits per pixel - 19,201 KB - great image quality
TIF - 8,8,8 2560x1920 uncompressed
14,414 KB - great image quality
TIF - 16,16,16 2560x1920 uncompressed
28,814 KB - great image quality
_______________________________________________
From what I could see, there seemed to be no difference visually between the last 4 tests (tga 8-24 and 8-32 & tif 8 and tif 16). Now it came between two choices based on file size since they were all practically indistinguishable. Those were the 8-bit TGA saved as 24 bits per pixel and the 8 bit TIF. They were both almost exactly the same size and quality.
So back to my original question…Is it useful at all to use 16-bit shaders over 8-bit? If there are benefits, are they worth double the file size? And if not, do people prefer the TGA format over TIF or vice versa since they are outputting the same quality at the same file size? I was personally leaning towards TIF mainly for its ability to have EXIF info and RAW conversion metadata attached to it while TGA did not.
Any input would be great.
Thanks,
Dave Quirus
P.S. Since I'm on the subject, can Houdini output 16-bit images so I can use that in my compositor while making adjustments?
Houdini Lounge » Posting errors
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Posting errors
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
ahh.. email notification.. don't have it on, but if mta got it then that's prob what it is. it prob started as soon as talkien started posting his because mta's would be considered a ‘reply’ to be notified.
i bet i get one when i post.. will see.
thanks guys,
dave
i bet i get one when i post.. will see.
thanks guys,
dave
Houdini Lounge » Posting errors
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Has anyone else experienced an increase in posting errors? Everytime i post, i get a ‘debug mode’ error and a bunch of stuff. It still posts the message, but is odd that it always gives an error. It used to happen every so often, but it's everytime now.
Problem on my side or is this happening to more?
Thanks,
Dave
Problem on my side or is this happening to more?
Thanks,
Dave
Technical Discussion » 'draw faded' in display options
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
wow, i can't believe i have never seen that before. i couldn't even find it after you explained where it was. i thought you all were crazy. for some reason, i just kept passing over it. odd. cool tho.
thanks steven.
thanks steven.
Technical Discussion » 'draw faded' in display options
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
at obj level, select your geo, right click, select x-ray. can only x-ray one geo with another. so if you have a sphere and a box merged in one geo. they will not work. have to be in seperate geo's.
hth,
dave
p.s. whats all this draw faded stuff? don't see it in my disp prop. new to 6.1?
hth,
dave
p.s. whats all this draw faded stuff? don't see it in my disp prop. new to 6.1?
Houdini Lounge » RFE: Houdini docs online
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
I've kinda run in to this before. Where I wish I could look up something in the docs for reasons like mark said. or sometimes I don't wan't to have to install the newest version but am interested in reading an updated doc to see what new features have been included with detailed descriptions of use. and possibly even learn about it before i actually do use the upgraded version.
thanks,
dave
thanks,
dave
Technical Discussion » How to import audio,character dance in sync
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
look at houdini manual dealing with chops.. you will find a lot of interesting information in there. i can go on forever for what you can do with audio here (as it interests me a lot), but i think it will be good for you to explore and figure out your options rather than someone else sit here and tell you exactly how to do it. to start off though.. go to chops and throw down a file chop. bring in your audio file and go from there. search previous posts. looks at chops tutorials. read the manual.
i would try to do something simple with audio before getting your whole character dancing and what not. just as a test, see if you can create a pair of procedural speakers. left and right.. and maybe with a subwoofer and a tweeter. make it so you can just plugin an audio file and it automatically makes the speakers move like they should. i feel it's a good first lesson to get in to chops and audio driven animation. in a few days, you will having a lot of fun and going further with audio in houdini. i know i did.
dave
i would try to do something simple with audio before getting your whole character dancing and what not. just as a test, see if you can create a pair of procedural speakers. left and right.. and maybe with a subwoofer and a tweeter. make it so you can just plugin an audio file and it automatically makes the speakers move like they should. i feel it's a good first lesson to get in to chops and audio driven animation. in a few days, you will having a lot of fun and going further with audio in houdini. i know i did.
dave
Technical Discussion » Reversing Inverse Kinematics to no Kinematics
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
sure you can mix all sorts of IK, FK, Twist Affector, No IK and change them as you want. As long as you have your rig setup right to do so, you can have certain bones point to whatever solver you wish. of course each bone may end up needing different affectors and solvers depending on how you are doing the whole thing. you can even have your whole model and rig done and last minute add another finger to the model and add a few bones to work without having to redo the whole rig if you want. and yes you can copy and paste rig setups and solvers from file to file as long as naming conventions are the same.
i dont know what has changed since 6.1, so i cant help you there. but still.. very powerful stuff.
dave
i dont know what has changed since 6.1, so i cant help you there. but still.. very powerful stuff.
dave
Technical Discussion » Reversing Inverse Kinematics to no Kinematics
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
you can point your bones to any chops IK solver (or even none for your case) by selecting the bone and going to its params. in the ‘bone’ tab, there is a string that is labeled ‘Kinematics Solver’. If you had an IK solver attached to the bones before, then it should still be pointing to that chop. If you want to get rid of it, just make that string empty and it will not use any kinematics solver.
the reason your bones errored is because they were pointing to an IK chop as the solver and that chop was not cooking properly because it was looking for you goal, which you had deleted.
hth,
dave
the reason your bones errored is because they were pointing to an IK chop as the solver and that chop was not cooking properly because it was looking for you goal, which you had deleted.
hth,
dave
Technical Discussion » CHOP IK's export flag has no influance on my bones
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
as arctor said, the export flag doesn't need to be on. it doesn't affect anything in this case.
you can either temporarily disable the kinetmatics by settting the blend to 0 or by hitting the bypass button on your inversekin chop. then move your null around freely. but if you unbypass it or set the blend back to 1, it will snap the bones back in to place with your goal.
dave
you can either temporarily disable the kinetmatics by settting the blend to 0 or by hitting the bypass button on your inversekin chop. then move your null around freely. but if you unbypass it or set the blend back to 1, it will snap the bones back in to place with your goal.
dave
Technical Discussion » Deformed Viewport!
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
ahh yea..didnt even think of doing that. space-h works great. (space-g as well of course.) im suprised the alt thing hasn't happened to me more often before.
Technical Discussion » Deformed Viewport!
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
ya know what.. i just found out something else by complete accident.
no matter what camera you are in, if you hold down alt when you zoom in/out, it will change what appears to be its focal length. but in actuality, it is changing the param. ‘window size’ in the crop tab of you camera. if it's occuring in an actual camera, then fine, just go set ‘window size’ back to 1 and all fixed. but unfortunately, alt+zoom will still change it even in ‘no camera’ and you have no params to change it back (just have to hold alt in and zoom in/out to correct it back by eye).
so maybe you held down the alt key instead of the spacebar once by accident (that's how i just stumbled upon it). ..
learning new things every day…
dave
no matter what camera you are in, if you hold down alt when you zoom in/out, it will change what appears to be its focal length. but in actuality, it is changing the param. ‘window size’ in the crop tab of you camera. if it's occuring in an actual camera, then fine, just go set ‘window size’ back to 1 and all fixed. but unfortunately, alt+zoom will still change it even in ‘no camera’ and you have no params to change it back (just have to hold alt in and zoom in/out to correct it back by eye).
so maybe you held down the alt key instead of the spacebar once by accident (that's how i just stumbled upon it). ..
learning new things every day…
dave
Technical Discussion » Deformed Viewport!
- deecue
- 412 posts
- Offline
Actually, that screen shot was from no camera. Unfortunately i cropped the bottom part of the image, so you cant see it. But if you notice at the top-right, it says persp, not persp:cam1. So it is the default ‘no camera’. That is what i was trying to say in my explanation of what I did. It seems as if the ‘no camera’ automatically adopted cam1's focal length. I just added that elliptical section to show you what cam1's settings were when I zoomed out and switched to ‘no camera’. But yea, that screen shot is the defaul camera.
Thanks, i love that baby too.
Thanks, i love that baby too.
-
- Quick Links