NORMAL MAP 2

[maru]

One good idea would be sending the scene to us (preferably in a simplified, lightweight version), with the issue clearly visible - so that we could switch between Corona and the C4D Physical engine and clearly see the difference. Something like a plane with the bump texture applied would probably work fine. We could then try to check if the issue is inside the material setup or inside Corona.

[Ealexander]

Here's what I do on Normals:

In the top level BUMP channel, I set the strength to 100% and in the Texture drop down menu I choose Corona>Normal.  I then Click on the thumbnail of the normal (which at this point is still a checkerboard with a ? mark.  Clicking on the thumbnail takes me into the normal properties (this is where your previous screen grab is showing).  From here I choose the file in texture and in Channels Direction I check Flip Y (green).  Your screen grabs don't show the original bump channel properties which need to be at 100% - they default to 10% and it should be a Corona>Normal texture in the Texture slot.

Is this how you are setting it up?

[ozwald]

Here's what I do on Normals:

In the top level BUMP channel, I set the strength to 100% and in the Texture drop down menu I choose Corona>Normal.  I then Click on the thumbnail of the normal (which at this point is still a checkerboard with a ? mark.  Clicking on the thumbnail takes me into the normal properties (this is where your previous screen grab is showing).  From here I choose the file in texture and in Channels Direction I check Flip Y (green).  Your screen grabs don't show the original bump channel properties which need to be at 100% - they default to 10% and it should be a Corona>Normal texture in the Texture slot.

Is this how you are setting it up?

thanks for answering
Yes, that way I always use the normal ones, but !! I do not have strength in 100% but in 50.

[ozwald]

I do not know if the problem is because the material is glass, when giving 100% strength the normal channel, it does not look natural

[actrask]

I think the biggest lesson here is to not switch your renderer in the middle of a deadline.

There are always going to be nuances between renderers, especially tweaking bitmap filters trying to get refracted normals to behave identically between renderers.

When you have adequate time to solve a problem you can approach it with a sound mind and not be so emotional :)

[ozwald]

tests

[TomG]

Sending the scene to us would be helpful - https://help.c4d.corona-renderer.com/support/solutions/articles/12000033461-how-to-report-issues-

Unfortunately there is not a lot we can tell from just two side by side renders :(

[Ealexander]

Well based on your last images - the difference is pretty subtle.  I don't know if the Normals are doing something funky, but it might just be how the lighting is reacting to it. 

If you look at the left side of the bottle, you can see your reflection is much blurrier in the Corona renders then the Physical - so the engine is handling light different (this is normal - every engine is different) - but my point is that blurriness or softness of lighting won't produce the sharp highlights that I think you are looking for from the Physical render on the droplets.  So I don't know if Normals are okay or not, but I think there are a lot of subtle factors at play here. 

Lighting drives it all in 3D, so perhaps look at your lighting or other materials set ups as part of the variation in droplets.  I think the subtle difference is an acceptable variation of engine and I won't only look at Normals here.  Be curious to see Octane or Redshift version next to these just to see the contrast between more then two engines.

Also - I mix and composite images using different engines all the time - nothing wrong with that.  Use what works strongest for the job/task at hand.  Please send a file to the devs to take a look at.

[actrask]

Is it not a bitmap filter blur setting? Your Corona render looks like it's set at 1.0 where the C4D looks like 0.01

[ozwald]

hello guys thanks for being attentive, for reasons of time and that I have fallen behind with the work I have not been able to send the file since they are several products.
But!! Here I share the normal map that I am using in the glass, I pass them to a smaller size. so that if you want they can do tests.
my glass is transparent, with reflection of 1.6 and a refraction of 1.5 with green color, in the map of normal a force of 50%
Any comment will be pending

Thank you

[TomG]

Well, the images won't win any awards, was just a quick test :)

Looked like flip green was needed (otherwise the reflection in the droplets was upside down). I also started with changing the filtering as I'd suggested, and you can get a much sharper look - Tent width 2 is the default, but you can go Tent width 1, Blackman Harris width 1, or None. You could also use Sharpen/Blur in the VFB to sharpen some more if it wasn't getting oversharp by that point.

Without the original scene, I can't look at differences in lighting and how that might be tweaked, there did seem to be some differences there (the HDRI not being at the same angle maybe? It wasn't much and may just be expected difference between engines, but couldn't say without looking at the scene whether or not the Corona lighting could be tweaked in some way to look more like the other - even things like Highlight Compress etc. could make a difference to the vividness of the image).

Edit Wrong Tent 1 uploaded, wasn't cropped, adding that now.

Also, JPG artefacts show up in the normal map, at least in this smaller JPG version.

[ozwald]

TomG
Thank you very much, in truth, what interests me is the clarity you got, that's what I want.
The strength of the relief you used is 100%?

Your image will not get any prize but it is very valuable for many who have problems with normal maps.

Thank you

[TomG]

Hi!

In this case, I used a strength of around 25% - didn't go any higher due to the JPG artefacts, which were more and more prominent the higher the strength (and things did begin to look "too strong" up toward 100% anyway). Most likely the filtering setting had the biggest difference for the image - was going fast yesterday so didn't have time to make a screengrab, here it is now. And in case the "super sharpened extra vivid" post processing might be of interest, the .conf file is attached for that, you can load it into the VFB (or ignore if that last image was too over the top ;) )

[TomG]

I'm hoping the original normal map (before it was made smaller) doesn't have those JPG artefacts in it too :)

[ozwald]

I'm hoping the original normal map (before it was made smaller) doesn't have those JPG artefacts in it too :)

Thank you very much friend, it was what I wanted, it has really changed a lot.
Tent px1 goes much better.
About normal I do not know much, that's a pack I bought, supposedly professional at 5000px size.
About Tent px1 gives me an idea to get more details in other types of textures.

Thanks again