wasup,
i was wondering if anyone makes a renderer for zbrush, i have found an assload of renderers but none seem to handlle zbrush,
your input will be greatly appreciated,
semimoto
What’s wrong with ZBrush’s renderer? 
To use another renderer, you would need to export your models out as *.obj format files and import them into the other renderer.
ok,
i am new to zbrush,let me give a chance, do you know of a good tutorial for the zbrush renderer?
thanks for your response,
semimoto
It’s quite nice, but there are some things that it doesn’t do well. Perspective is funny in it for instance. Shadows can be problematic depending on what you want too.
Nothing is perfect.
I wish someone would dedicate a lengthy tutorial to rendering in Zbrush! What little there is on any Zbrush tut DVD has been a little tagged on in my opinion. Everyone concentrates on the modeling and the rendering is a bit of an afterthought in tutorial DVD’s
People knock Zbrush’s rendering capabilities, but I’ve seen some peoples renders in Zbrush that could match any other renderer out there in terms of realism. I find it hard to get a good setup in Zbrush, and have relied on other setups kindly donated by Forum members.
I’d buy a tutorial DVD exclusively dedicated to rendering and setups in Zbrush!
i have no knowledge of such a thing but it is on my wish list…but i think zb2.5 is gonna have some awesome stuff…i wouldn’t be suprised one little bit if they haven’t kept a little gem like a rendering plugin(built-in) back so we do have a suprise or two left when we get it.
only a guess, wish, fingers crossed kinda thing
yes sir i wouldn’t be suprised
I beleive great Mytholon or lemo or marcus should create a tutorial for us ?
Are you buying the idea 
:lol:
I don’t believe Zbrush has a standard scanline or raytracing renderer built into it, as you’d find in a package like Modo, Lightwave or 3ds/XSI. What it has is a few elements of a renderer, but then it has a number of fake techniques to fudge the same kind of ‘look’… which is pretty inaccurate, but good looking none-the-less. Explaining the real difference between what Zbrush has compared to everything else is quite hard to do in a single post, so suffice to say- if you don’t know what I’m talking about, learn about the standard rendering methods around at the moment (as much as you can, without being swamped in things like the physics of light) and you’ll quickly be able to identify what Zbrush both is and isn’t doing.
…but I’ve seen some peoples renders in Zbrush that could match any other renderer out there in terms of realism.
That’s because when it comes to rendering, you don’t know much 
Zbrush couldn’t match the big-name renderers in a fit. The ‘renders’ (if you can call them that) may look fairly real at first glance, but put them side to side against a real object and you’ll see how fake they really do look. Zbrush images often look great to me, but they never get close to photo-realism.
Perspective is funny in it for instance.
That doesn’t have anything to do with Zbrush’s ability to render something. That’s to do with Zbrush’s perspective display of objects (you’ll notice the perspective is odd when you haven’t rendered the image)
Nothing is perfect.
Exactly. And this is the best way to put it.
Not accurate. <-- Zbrush ------------------ Mental Ray - Vray ---- Maxwell --> Accurate to the physics of light, etc.
Zbrush’s renderer falls close to inaccurate. Does this mean someone can’t produce a good looking image? Of course not- good looking images have never been dependent on how accurate a renderer is. But, you wouldn’t usually want to try and produce something like an architectural rendering without a renderer which can create the effect of light according to what you’d find in the real world.
So here’s two things-
Zbrush doesn’t have a renderer like Maxwell, or Mental Ray, because Zbrush doesn’t use an entirely 3D world. It’s a 2.5D world, for the most part. So, it needs a special way of handling light which can take into account the fact that rendering pixols can’t be done in a world-accurate way. I hope that’s somewhat clear. It’s as simple as: we don’t live in a 2.5D world
The second thing is- the more accurate you get, the slower things tend to become. Maxwell is a very accurate renderer (in a number of ways) but that extra accuracy takes time… lots and lots of time. So, billrobertson42 was right when he said nothing’s perfect. Everything fudges things to some degree… it’s just a balance of how much realism you want when choosing a rendering option. In the case of Zbrush, you get one, because Zbrush’s 2.5D universe is unique. Thankfully though, Zbrush is an artistic tool first, and not one used to replace programs which attempt to replicate physically accurate environments in full 3D.
I hope some of the above is helpful. Rendering is a complex thing. The long and short of it is- in 3D, you use each tool for each job. Zbrush doesn’t render like XSI or Maya can, so physically accurate renderings are best left to them. Want to ignore real life and render in a 2.5D world? Well, only Zbrush can do that.
well who wants to make it realistic , i like it this way :D:D;)
kewl thread…went searching for info, from a thread about comparisons from a few years ago…finally found it…
Ya’ll may find it of some interest…
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=18796&highlight=southern
Ron
Thanks for that info, Reactor That certainly helps explain things, but positively does not help any! :lol: I’ve tried all the renderers you mentioned and more, but to put it simply, I found them complicated, cumbersome and in some cases impossible to use.
At least in Zbrush I can get a half way decent result. Not a great, but at least I ‘can’ get a result in Zbrush!
Even if the other renderers are better, there are some awesome renders I’ve seen done in Zbrush that ‘look’ as good as any final render I’ve seen anywhere on the net, whether they be technically better or not 
I don’t think it makes any difference to actually wanting to get the best result from Zbrush’s renderer anyways.
Here’s an excellent example of Zbrushs capabilities. I’m sure those who know the in’s-and-out’s of rendering/lighting etc, could rip this apart, but to me, who basically hasn’t got a clue, and can only compare this to real life and other renders I’ve seen, this looks bloody good to me! http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=37031
A good render makes a HUGE difference to how you view your work. An indepth tutorial solely on Zbrush lighting/rendering would be fantastic and greatly appreciated I’m sure! Most of everything else in Zbrush seems to have been explained to death, so why not rendering?
I’ve noticed quite a few threads by, Mahlikus The Black, that try to get the ball rolling with users uploading lighting/material/render setups, but they seemd to fizzle out, and I only found them by searching 
Here is his The Lighting Vault thread if anyones interested http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=1427
Anyone else feel the same way as me?
You’re right Angelstein, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to do better with (or even see improvements to) Zbrush’s renderer.
I’ve tried all the renderers you mentioned and more, but to put it simply, I found them complicated, cumbersome and in some cases impossible to use.
They’re complicated because the nuts and bolts of them are complex math. Once you start to understand things though, that complexity can be used to your advantage in a big way. It’s a balancing act though… maths is not a strong point of mine, so getting the most out of something like Mental Ray and creating shaders in the shader tree can be slow going for me. Can I recommend Carrara as a rendering solution if you’re having difficulties? It has a good renderer, and it bypasses the need to know a great deal to produce a nice render. I use it when I’m simply looking to have fun… just don’t turn on blurry reflections That needs improving. That said, if you’re looking to learn more, the manual which comes with Modo 202 also contains fantastic explanations of many rendering principles.
I agree wholeheartedly that if you’re not after physically accurate renders, Zbrush will create some beautiful images. That’s the thing that drew me to it in the first place! And, a lot of the time it’s refreshing to make a 3D image without having to worry about creating complex surfaces which deal with light in a certain way, etc.
A way to learn Zbrush better- study life around you. How does shadow fall? How do reflections, and specular work in real life? What different colours appear at different times of the day? Then, experiment in Zbrush and see if you can reproduce things. I bet you’ll learn a lot along the way! The other thing to do is practice rendering in something like Carrara, and learn about how renderers do things. What is sub surface scattering? What is global illumination, and how do renderers deal with reflected light? Then, take what you’ve found out and have a look at how those same things can be replicated in Zbrush. Practice, practice, practice
A tutorial will give you one, or two aspects of what can be done in Zbrush, but because you’re not bound by any real laws (ie: 90% is faked) learning your own techniques to reproduce what you want will be much more benificial… I think, anyway. However, I might sit down and make a tutorial, just to see if I can prove myself wrong
Carrara eh? To tell you the truth I’ve never heard of that, so I’ll definitely give it a try. Thanks for the suggestion
I really have a struggle accepting that math’s used to good effect and something as creative as sculpting can be combined to end up with something that excells in creative content. I see 3D models/scenes ALL over the net that look really slick and utterly fantastic, BUT, on a basic artistic level they are virtually worthless (to me at least!) because they are smothered in a fog of technical brilliance that most people cannot see past. It really peeves me off at times
Sometimes people DO excell in both, but their a minority I’d say. You may disagree!
I like a lot of the works on here because there shown at the most basic level, warts and all sort of thing, no technical fog! I think it takes quite a bit of guts to submit your work for peoples opinions at such an early stage of development, but people do it all the time on here, and I think it’s great.
I’m rambling and getting off the point I think! :lol:
All I’m saying is I’m crap at the technical side of things, I like hands on stuff rather than typing in values etc. That’s why I love Zbrush so much, it’s VERY hands on from the offset, although it does have some slightly more technical aspecst, but there bearable!
Zbrush is the only 3D app that I can actually use (And a little of Silo I suppose) so I’d like to get the most out of it. Tutorials have helped me greatly, but as I said, rendering is something that has little coverage in tut’s.
For me at least, 3D modeling starts and ends with Zbrush. I know some would find that limiting, but that’s just the way it is for me!
Thanks for the advice though, Reactor, much appreciated
“Gelato” and/or “Ribelato” from Nvidia.
You can use it with Maya, you can make it work for Silo - maybe this will work for Z2 as well.
It is an interesting project, and the basic version (good enough for most situations) is free.
I think it takes quite a bit of guts to submit your work for peoples opinions at such an early stage of development, but people do it all the time on here, and I think it’s great.
I agree with you
Second vote for Carrara.
If question look up work(s) of Marcel, this forum.
Off the wall suggestion, if the quality of the render
is important please consider Vue (seriously)
That depends on what you mean by ‘quality’.
Quality ( amateur view)
Have Maya 6: Mental ray renderer. Mental ray is mentioned
here a lot. In my back room, several books about it. At
Gnomon have seen dvds about it. Will not estimate hours
spent on rendering experiments. During a period of trying to
learn displacement mapping spent days with this.
By mistake was given Carrara 5 by my better half. I mentioned
to her the renders I had seem by Marcel were fantastic. ( still
believe this ). Not knowing about programs etc, she bought
the program for me. ( She still doesn not realize mistake was
made, nor will she)
Last year, acquired Vue 5 Infinite.
I will address one small issue, although I believe it to
be illustrative.
I have Poser 6. I will stop here while you all scoff at it.
I am a custormer of DAZ. I will stop again, you may scoff again.
Firefly is the rendering engine of Poser 6. It (from my amateur point of view)
doesn’t do bad, but I always had the feeling renders could be better.
At Siggraph the Poser People set up and rendered a scene for me.
Mine are the same if not better.
In Maya 6 you really cannot bring in a Poser scene without a plugin.
I have one called “pixeldust”, purchased from Renderosity for about 30 dollars.
One of the problems is that it works with Maya 6 only not 7. All other plugins cost a lot more.
The renders were good, but still lack of quality.
Bring Poser scene into Carrara 5. The program ( 5 Pro) has the built in ability
to bring in Poser scenes. Renders are great but lacked “something”.
Long ago had purchased hires textures for daz model vicki.
Scene using this texture were used for renders in Maya, Firefly, Carrara, Poser6
Renders looked ok, but looked like a waste of money for hi rez textures.
Vue Infinite 5
Vue has, as one of it’s features, the ability to use hdri lighting. ( In a thread
a few down from this one, you may download a hdri free) It also supports
the importing of Poser scenes.
Mental ray also supports this(hdri). Carrara also. Firefly does not, but supports IBL.
On my first render of a poser scene in Vue using hdri, I practically
fell out of my seat. Truly.
Did not look like a Poser model, looked like a model.
In Maya, Carrara, Poser 6 cannot duplicate to any extent the quality
of Poser hdri render done in Vue.
Have had people that “know” Mental Ray, attempt it. They cannot do it.
To tell the truth, life would be much easier for me if I did not have
to use Vue for the Poser renders.
But.
The “quality” of the renders of a poser scene involving hires textures
cannot be done as well as in Vue.
I have also sent objects created and textured in Zbrush into this
program with excellent results.
I can only speak of that which I have seen and tried.
You professional kids are at this point laughing your ass off.
I understand.
I can only say it works.
Spent my evening in Boston ( Siggraph) with people from Vue.
Nice people.
Lucas films used their program for Pirate’s Movie (forgot the name)
Vue 6 should be out soon, with the ability to handle
displacement mapping.
For us amateurs, worth a look?
So Bicc now I know where you disappeared on that evening as mentioned by lemo
You are quite correct.
The Vue people made the mistake
of staying at the same hotel.
To be honest because of what was mentioned in the
previous post I basically “attacked” them.
Not to use zbrush forum for other stuff.
But Vue is worth looking into.
I truly wish that somewhere in one of my
other programs there was a renderer that worked as well.
edit: one point I forgot to mention.
In it’s advertising Vue is stressed for its “outdoor” scenes.
When you think Vue you think, grass, trees, rocks, only.
While this is quite true, not a lot of mention is made of “indoors”.
It would be a mistake, I believe, to overlook this.