1
Substance Designer - Technical Support - Re: 3D View settings not saved as expected.
on: August 28, 2019, 10:36:50 am
Bump2
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
My entry for the Materialize Contest. (WIP)
Reference:
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Qq2W4
@wolfen please create your own thread to avoid confusion: I am going to delete your post.Yeah, sorry about that. I thought at first it was an everyone kind of thread. My bad. =)
QuoteI don't recall having this issue in the previous build of SD. I upgraded to the new 2017.2.1 version and started seeing this problemThis is not an issue specific to SD. The fact that you started noticing it just after having upgraded is probably just a coincidence.QuoteShould I be setting the whole substance as a 16b? Or just the nodes where this is happening at?Setting the whole substance as 16bpc would probably solve the problem but would be overkill. Conversely, just changing the nodes where you start noticing the banding may not be enough to solve the problem. In all likelihood, you need to set to 16bpc all the nodes leading to the one for which you notice banding (and if that includes a bitmap you imported, you need to make sure it was imported from a 16bpc file, and that it was created using a 16bpc process).QuoteBut again.. it's really odd that it just goes from smooth to banding like that.The stepping is already there in the image before your normal map node. It's just that we don't see it. Our eyes are not very good at distinguishing low dynamic range colors. Usually, 8bpc is sufficient to encode colors/luminance so that we don't see any stepping (once gamma is properly applied). However, we start noticing it instantly when filters based on computing the local slope are applied (like computing the normal map). Also, when using the image as an height map, you would notice the stepping.
Reconstructing a smoother normal map from an 8bpc height field is possible, but it would be slower, not guaranteed to be perfect, and would miss high frequency normal details (it would blur the result).
For height and normals, yes it is usually better to work in 16bpc. If the intended result is noisy / has a lot of high frequency detail to hide the quantization, exporting in 8bpc may be sufficient, but with smooth surfaces, either exporting at 16bpc or using dithering is required.
See this discussion on Polycount for more in-depth info about this: http://polycount.com/discussion/148303/of-bit-depths-banding-and-normal-maps