Blender Vs Z Brush - For Sculpting

Discuss how they compare with each other.

Is Z-Brush bloated and over complex?
Is Z-Brush obviously superior like many seem to say?

Again…

Well anyway,

Zbrush is better in my opinion
It just feels better to use

but my opinion is really worth next to nothing I don’t really sculpt

Last I checked, even a vs. thread such as this is now allowed on this forum (it too often leads to fanboy wars).

You’re comparing a generalist app. like Blender (with limited resources) to a fully dedicated sculpting app. that is the industry leader and made by a team of full-time developers. FOSS will often be behind the commercial offerings simply because there aren’t enough resources to change that.

@Ace

there was a thread much like this a while back, Richard didn’t have a problem with it… I think(he didn’t lock it)

and there were exceptions to the rule

If you wish to empirically compare render engines, modeling features, or something else of the sorts, this can be fine.

If I usually sculpt until certain level of detail in blender, if I need more I go in zbrush.
also I use zbrush only for sculpring, the new modeling fancy options are not even comparable to blender. (imo)

ZBrush is leaps and bounds better than Blender for sculpting. More brush types, more intuitive/stable brush operation, WAY more polygons possible on screen, better poly painting tools, better import/export functionality with other modelling applications, better normal/texture baking tools, more support, etc.

This is not to bag out Blender, it’s sculpting is pretty awesome given you pay nothing for it… but ZBrush is the industry leader for a reason. Their focus is 3D/2.5D sculpting and painting, their programmers (& reasonably large revenue stream) is dedicated to that goal and it shows.

This question is like asking which car is better for racing/acceleration, the Porsche Spyder or the Volkswagen Golf. In the narrow use case given, the answer is obvious even if the Golf perhaps provides better value for money, fuel efficiency, is a better family car, is cleaner in regards to emissions, etc. ZBrush is the Spyder, Blender the Golf… at least when considered specifically for sculpting. :wink:

Actually there is no comparison. DL and try for yourself:

Install it when you can spend a lot of time with it. It is complex and different but worth it.

And like I hinted before, you should also just forget about Blender ever being on par with the current version of Zbrush because of development and financial resources alone (unless you have a few million in the bank that could be thrown to the BF for an army of developers).

The best the BF can do right now is to at least try to make Blender’s sculpting tools usable and useful for a lot of general 3D cases (and yes they can always be improved), but it stops there.

ZBrush vs Blender for sculpting is like Adobe Creative Suite vs drawing pictures in the sand with a stick.

I think this is a prime argument for the point that Blender should try and focus on doing several things really well, rather than doing lots of stuff in a half-assed way.

The rules state

No “versus” threads - Rhetorical comparisons of one software over another are not allowed. These bring needless debate that too often becomes contentious. If you wish to empirically compare render engines, modeling features, or something else of the sorts, this can be fine. Just keep it focused on the data.

The vast majority of blender users I suspect are hobbyists and buying ZBrush is out of the question if they want to get into sculpting. Blender sculpting meets their needs. If one wants to do more then there are the more feature rich sculpting applications.

Absolutely true. Blender’s sculpting functionality is not to be sniffed at. It’s leaps and bounds better than it was and you can get substantially good result from it… but in a head-to-head comparison between it & ZBrush there is no competition between the two. One is beyond any doubt better than the other, even if the other is “good enough” for many users.

Also, I think Tea Monster was pointing out that in a direct comparison with ANY specialised application, it’s generally going to be inferior precisely because it’s a generalist software package. When it comes to architectural modelling, Blender is very often “good enough” but SketchUp is going to be better because that is it’s focus. The same principle applies to sculpting, composition, texture painting, etc.

Whether or not the Blender Foundation should focus on a specific area or remain generalist is another question entirely, but unless it does it will most likely remain inferior to the focused alternatives. It’s a simple matter of resources & the kinds of compromises needed for generalist applications.

I only been with Blender for less than a year and in contrast used Zbrush even before v3 so I hope I am not overly biased. I was super skeptical of Blender sculpting and told myself that surely nothing can challenge Zbrush - the 3D app for artists. After all Mudbox and 3D coat seem to have the functionality but just dont feel right when you attempt to do same things… Well i was wrong!

Blender requires bit better hardware to handle as many polygons as ZB but it has a lot more benefits of its own. I have customized it to behave just like ZB (same hotkeys, similar brushes) and with addition of powerful Blenders polygon modeling tools, outliner, layers, local symmetry (similar to poseable but actually works), modifiers etc… at least for me it is far superior and more streamlined workflow. I have also written custom GoZ functionality(+arraymesh, layers) to sync ZB and Blender with press of a button as well as have ZB-Remesher being called from within Blender… but quite honestly I rarely need to step out of Blender - it’s just that great.

I do admit that with very highpoly organics (20+mil) I would feel more comfortable with performance and the feel of brushes in ZB but that’s about all i can think of. I do love Zbrush and spent so much time in there but a) it is increasingly becoming bloated UI wise requiring artist to spend too much time skipping around tabs b) I believe that sculpting will increasingly be more heavily integrated in main 3D application for more streamlined workflow (just as with new Maya). Hybrid workflow (poly, modifiers, sculpt) etc offers better efficiency than ZB where features like poly modeling, nanomesh(particles) or retopo are unnaturally hacked in.

TL;DR: in my humble opinion with good hardware+hotkeys/customization+ few scripts, blender can offer same or more depending on circumstances.

If you want a streamlined sculpting tool - Sculptris is pretty good - and best part - it’s free!

It’s kinda like a cut down version of Z-brush.

http://pixologic.com/sculptris/

Why would you use Sculptris when you have dynamic topology right in Blender with more tools etc

If “what you do all day, every day, for a living,” is “3D sculpting,” then you might justify the purchase of a specialized application to do just that. But this is no reason to “flame bait” Blender … and I am pleased that so far nobody took the bait … which is designed to be a general-purpose application that incorporates the entire(!) 3D video production process.

I, too, use “other software” in conjunction with Blender. Final Cut Pro, for example.

Now, what would be useful, in this thread and for this forum, would be a knowledgeable discussion of how Blender’s sculpting facilities could be further improved. Get specific. What ideas could be incorporated into Blender’s sculpting process, and exactly how might this look in the user interface and user workflow? This is how software project planning begins. This is how great software gets even better.

@cgstrive:

I’m not sure I can see how your tl;dr matches what you said earlier in the post. You concede you need to go in/out of ZBrush for certain functionality (e.g. Remesher) and higher polygon counts. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that means that you don’t get the “same or more” from Blender, but rather the “same or more” from having both ZBrush & Blender on your machine?

Am I missing something?

@BT. I suppose i should work on my communication. It is not one of my strong points but information is all there. As i mentioned i have been with blender for around a year so naturally as I was learning sculpting i felt deprived in some areas. As such I had to conform the work environment to what i was used to (zb hotkeys-> blender) + developed set of tools to help me with transition (zb <-> blend obj/layer/mod(arraymesh,mirror) sync (GOZ like)). They were a MUST at transitional stage but at best used 1x a month today even though i sculpt and model daily in Blender. There is simply very little I miss or need from ZB. It’s true perhaps If i was working on some highpoly(20+ mil) organic model ZB would be advantageous however I usually have 50+ subtools where each is below few mil, Blender has no problem what so ever with that.

Additional observation I would like to make is that while ZB is increasingly adapting fully featured DCC app features such as particles, arraymesh, polytools, retopo etc (in very limited way); now nearly all major 3D software have sculpting built in with newest addition being Maya (very impressive tools!). This begs the question if we really expect ZB like sculpting software to evolve into bloatware where its UI is increasingly littered with limited features OR can we expect fully featured DCC app like Blender or Maya to have a decent Sculpting module. In my honest opinion Blender already does. Hardware is no longer a limit like it was 10 years ago. Also keep in mind that every time you export something you lose data (hair, modifiers/nodes, rig, polydata). In that sense it might be far more optimal to keep things in 1 place rather than send to 10 different programs for UV, 3D paint, Sculpt, Retopo, Bake etc etc. I believe that while ZB is no doubt king of sculpting and easiest to get result with; artists in future will have a lot more functionality in their main DCC application and less incentive to jump around all these specialized programs as we once did.

More tools /= better.

Isn’t that a bit like saying “why use Microsoft Photo editor to change the brightness of an image when you can use GIMP or Photoshop which have more tools”.

I like Sculptris because:

  1. It’s fast
  2. It’s streamlined
  3. Has an uncomplicated interface
  4. IMO it’s easier to get consistent results than Blender’s dynamic topology tools (good as they are)

As a simple, no nonsense sculpting tool - Sculptris is great.

Ok. I see what the consensus is now. Z Brush is far superior if you’re a pro sculptor and sculpt a lot and are competent using all sculpting tools available.
But i guess the more interesting question is, at what point should you move on from blender and switch to Z Brush.
For example i’ve been able to sculpt a convincing skull, and a jaguar cat within blender, but i’ve never been capable of sculpting a human face that looks anything like the person im trying to sculpt, and i don’t often use sculpting so im not very familiar with the brushes and tools. For me it would be pretty silly to purchase Z Brush.

that’s not true

better normal/texture baking tools

also not true the baking capabilities in zbrush are quite limited - no cage baking for example, udim is also hard to handle

but overall zbrush is better than blender - especially the subtool feature and the “feeling”

btw i’m a zbrush fanboy nothing can compete with it :wink: