Has anyone else seen this months Computer Graphics magazine, this article has alot to do with character creations, it really looks alot like most work done in Poser with some of Stephy Z's creations and Nefitis. Also maybe even DAZ'S Michael and Vic, but not mention of any of them. Just curious to see if anyone noticed. Sharen

It did state that work was done in Poser, but no other creators of their work mentioned. Sharen

Well maybe, just maybe - a little of the snooty attitude towards Poser is dissipating. Of course, LW, Max, Cinema and Maya folk (no, NOT the ones that frequent this forum, I mean many of the other ones who refuse to, lol) will continue to keep a distance for as long as they can. After all, Poser is accessible to the masses and we can't have that in our fine elitist little 3D art world, can we? lol :] Fish

I just thought it was curious that an article in print did not have those creators even mentioned. They were a great deal a part of the article's point. Oh well, maybe I am just pointing out something that does not need to be pointed out. Sharen

My comment had nothing to do with that Sharen. I agree with you fully - it is strange that they omitted to mention the artists or modelers. What I meant is, considering the fact that they used and mentioned Poser at all - perhaps the 3D community is finally accepting Poser as something other than low end. We can hope at least :o)

:] Fish

Message edited on: 05/25/2004 05:51

Granted, it may be the particular issues I've purchased, but Computer Arts seems to use Poser a lot. They put it forth as a valuable tool for graphics work, in conjunction with others.
I'm not worried what the elitists think, particularly since the snootiest are probably as clueless as I am, except with more money to drop on their toys. If industry's willing to use it, that says a lot more.

I agree with you both, and it is not that they mentioned Poser (I am glad they did finally recongnize it) but what bothers me a little, is that due to the content of the article, (Designer Movie Stars), that they failed to mention the people who contributed to the out come of the look of the models. Sharen

What the full title of the Mag? Just Computer Graphics? I'd be interested in checking that out, I have noticed that computer arts are running more and more articles/including free stuff on the disc for Poser. It's good to see. I'd still love to see waht the purists could do with Poser.

Attached Link: http://www.cgw.com

The article I am referring to is Beautiful People, click the issue of Puss and Boots and then you come to the features page, scroll down to Features and it is the second one. Sharen

Message edited on: 05/25/2004 08:45

Message edited on: 05/25/2004 08:46

Great thanks for that, I'll go have a read. :o)

"Well maybe, just maybe - a little of the snooty attitude towards Poser is dissipating.
Of course, LW, Max, Cinema and Maya folk (no, NOT the ones that frequent this forum, I mean many of the other ones who refuse to, lol) will continue to keep a distance for as long as they can."

What you have to understand is that the "attitude" towards Poser outside of the community isn't going to change until Poser does. What I mean by that is, right now Poser is not an application that will wind up playing a roll in CG outside of still images and short films. It doesn't integrate well into a production pipeline, and is too clunky and unstable.

Most of the people using those "high end" applications are professionals in the CG industry, or students looking to get involved in the CG industry. Poser simply doesn't have a reputation in CG compared to those apps, and it has very little to do with the cost of the program and more to do with it's functionality in comparison. Simply put, there is no comparison. If you've ever tried using LW, MAX, or Maya, then you know how deeply complex and feature-rich they are. Yes, they are extremely expensive, but it's a case of getting what you paid for. Once you get a good understanding of the interface and tools, you're able to do much more, much faster than you can in Poser. Poser does can certainly cut time in some aspects, but its workflow really sucks by comparison. No one working professionally with a strict deadline and tight budget is going to want to put up with Poser's "stop and go" workflow. I mean, no one who's bound to a large-scale production contract is going to want to risk working in a program WITHOUT multiple undo's, quick-access hotkeys, network rendering, extensive and intuitive animation controls, or any of the other things Poser lacks.

NONE of this, of course, justifies some of the downright idiotic attitudes some people have towards Poser, but attitudes will not change until Poser itself can prove it's a tool that can be used to help make CG production faster and more efficient to people who actually make a living in that field. :-) Message edited on: 05/25/2004 10:07

I have to agree with maxxmodels. In direct comparison to high-end apps, poser gets blown away. Of course, it only costs about 1/20th of the price, so what can you expect? And that's what it comes down to. I'm a photographer and I know I can take a great picture with a rinky-dinky throwaway camera.... if I really, really try hard enough. But why bother? I use nikon and mamiya. They cost a fortune, but hey, they do what they're supposed to. And if your livelihood depends on that, you'll pay the extra bucks. Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking poser. I love it. But it has it's limits and we should recognise that. Of course, the people who scoff at poser just because it's cheap are another matter. They're just dumb snobs. mac

At the school I work, an instructor at one time mentioned he used Poser to do animatics when he worked at Lucasfilm.

"At the school I work, an instructor at one time mentioned he used Poser to do animatics when he worked at Lucasfilm." Oh, there's no doubt... Poser is definitely the best app to use for animatics, where quick mock-ups are necessary. But I know for a fact ILM has never employed Poser in a final cut. I've seen some impressive shorts done with Poser, and even more impressive ones done with DAZ models in other apps.

All comments above are good and informative, but my reason for stating this about CGW's article, was really to point out that this article neglects to point out who the creators are of these models. The article points out Poser, why does it not also point out that if it wasn't for StehpyZ's (Gaia), Kozaburo's Hair, Nefitis and DAZ's Victoria, these images could not have been created. That is really my point. I really feel that it is our responsibility to give credit accordingly. One time I did a favor for someone, I used part of Traveler's textures to help this person out, I neglected to point out that these textures were created by Traveler, my oversight. It was not right to overlook this important fact. It was corrected immediately. This is my point, sometimes these things happen, but once noticed it should be corrected. How will our talented creators ever get recognized if we do not include them in articles, films, images etc. These people work really hard on their talent and it should not be overlooked. That is really my point. Sharen

"The article points out Poser, why does it not also point out that if it wasn't for StehpyZ's (Gaia), Kozaburo's Hair, Nefitis and DAZ's Victoria, these images could not have been created." Well, they still could have been created, just not nearly as easily. ;-) I see your point. I have mixed thoughts about this though. I mean, it's definitely the correct thing to do, but... and I'm speaking strictly as "Devil's Advocate" here... perhaps some artists who are commissioned for work do not give credit to 3rd parties openly because, to the average non-poser-user, it makes them look as if they "brokered" the image and didn't create it all themselves. I'm not saying this is the case here, but an artist looking to get their name out there and gain credibility from their work would probably not wish to include "credits" for textures and props in a commercial image (unless they were required). Outsiders to this community would have a hard time fully understanding the mechanics of it all, and might have a hard time accepting the fact that elements in a specific image are usually purchased or given away by others. They wouldn't understand how you can call an image "yours", when so many other people have seemingly contributed to it's creation. You could see how this would potentially cast some confusion and doubt upon the artist who created the image, and is one reason Poser isn't fully accepted outside it's own community. Again, I'm NOT saying this is my own personal view of the matter, but for the sake of debate I decided to put it out there for digestion. :-)

You are absolutely correct in that thought, but I feel the proper thing that should have been done, are 2 things. First the author of the article, should have done a little more research in regards to a specific image she used in her article. She makes a statement regarding the name of the image and how it was created and in fact it was not accurate. Second the person they are referring to as the creator of the image, that person should have contacted the creators of models used to find out if he could first use it and if they would like credit. It should have been addressed to the original creators and let them give permission to use their names or not to use their names. To composite an image can be very time consuming and it is from our own work this is done, as we all know, but if it was not for the aid of models, textures, morphs that others have created, you might not have that composite. Oh by the way.....debating is a great thing. Let the debate continue cause this is how we learn. Thank you for your comments. Sharen

The question of credits is rather like the way the clothes might be credited in a real-world model shoot. Or the hair-stylist. In the context of an article about creating characters, the sources of the components deserve to be credited. But how many times do you see photographs of fashion where both the dress and the hairstyle get equal credit?