The fannies (Glutes) just dont look right on most of the poser models out there. They especially look bad when they are in certain (even non erotic) poses. I guess the problem lies in the basic geometry.Even in the default poses most seem to look like a couple of half spheres stuck on the back side of a hip. Even the injection morphes don't seem to look right..
The worst part seems to be where the crease seems to reach the lower hip back region. It appears as if there is a channel going from top top bottom rather than the natural looking effect of two soft muscles coming to an apex.
The bottoms at the legs could use some multiple folds (wrinkes) for that more average person look. This probably could be fixed with some detailed texture bump maps.

I have seen few post where someone has done some decent magnet work so I think it is possible. But every model I purchased seems to suffer this deficiency using morph features and all..
So far the injection morphes for M3 and M3 dont seem to have enough
resolution..
Does anyone sell a Fanny morph pack?? If not then this would be a good product to pursue

Let's be honest the same can be said about the breasts, the neck, the eyes,the arms..................... That's Poser for you. With a huge amount of post work reasonable results can be achieved but then why use Poser in the first place when better results can be achieved in Photoshop.

Why bother with Photoshop, just use a camara. ;P

Sikrite Much improved! Too bad this has to be done in post work. Have you ever tried to model a tiny butt on a male or female model. I have never got it to look right. Sure you can change the overall size of the glutes and raise the crease but the shape never looks right.. And once it moves it seems to really out of wack I guess what really gripes me is when I see a model where the posterier looks right in the sample view. I purchase it only to find that the picture was obviously doctored in post work.I am starting to get very skeptical about anything I see advertised.. as far as this goes

You should look at it this way. The original poser figures were just meant as reference figures and you were expected to paint the shit out of them. Now with the newer ones you just have to touch up here and there.

Yeah I guess these great photo realistic heads have spoiled me into thinking that the rest of the body can look as good. All this 3d stuff is optical tricks we play with the 2-D media... Who would have thought that those crappy looking Poser manikens could evolve to this. I am still not convinced that enventualy someone will figure a way to create a more realistic figure that will look great without alot post work..

the bum is not a fanny many girls becom upset when you make that mistaek

Well really we only work with it in 3D. As soon as it is rendered it's 2D with the illusion of depth like any realistic painting. ;)

Humm And here I was trying not to sound too vulgar. I thought fanny sounded more polite than bum...or butt.. Bum is British slang is it not...???Sounds coarse... Won't use the 'A' word sounds obscene Sorry if I offended anyone I could have said Gluteous Maximus...Gluteous Minor.. or whatever.. Humm what about Can, bottom, or maybe Hinney

I always like hinney myself. ;D "Bum" here in the U.S. it refers to someone who doesn't want a job, lives out of a cardboard box and drinks really cheap liquor. I don't think women here in the U.S. will like having their backsides Bum. ;)

lol- probably Daz considers the 'bum' to be part of the genitals, not worth developing!

Fanny: In British/Australian slang, it means a woman's genitals. In Americans slang, it means a posterior, bottom, butt, etc. Bum: In British/Australian slang, it's a shortened form of "bottom" and isn't not really rude, but it's not quite polite, either. In American slang, a "bum" is, as noted, a hobo, street-dweller, or a lazy person who doesn't want to work for a living. bonni

Never mind postwork what if you want to do an animation?? touch up every frame forget it. Also the ugly folded rubber doll look the elbow and knee joints have.

I'm just wondering if dynamic deformers could be your answer ? ... just a thought.

Attached Link: http://www.optidigit.com/Galleries/galleries.htm

Well, if you really want to do human character animation in 3D, Poser isn't the best solution unless you can put up with it's flaws.

For an example of some professional characters that have been, and still are, used in animation, just check out the work of Steven Stahlberg. There's a link to his website attached to my message. Check out his gallery, particularly the image named "The Stool". Almost no postwork was involved, and the character is animation-ready as you see it. Incredible realism, and excellent models:

"All images created by Steven Stahlberg in Maya Unlimited, most recent ones at the top. No raytracing. No other renderer than the Maya default used. No extensive retouching, compositing, or post work - occasionally some very minor Photoshop retouching. Also sometimes blur and grain added, and gamma slightly tweaked. These characters are all either immediately ready for animation, or potentially so (with a bit extra work)."

Basically, THIS is why so many professionals shun Poser. Not because things are pre-made (mostly), but because if you want the animation-perfect character with minimal flaws, you need to model it yourself or contract someone to do it in a sophisticated app that can handle the job. Not knocking Poser, I use it myself. Just trying to show an example of why it's not very good for most commercial animation. Message edited on: 06/06/2004 23:33

To add to your list: Butt: In US - backside, bottom In UK and (ex)colonies - what's left of the cigarette. (also applies in US, I know) :] Fish

For an example of some professional characters that have been, and still are, used in animation, just check out the work of Steven Stahlberg. Wow! That guy's GOOD! On the one hand, it makes me want Maya. OTOH, it makes me realize I'd probably end up with something that looked more like Gumby. :-/ -Heidi

arrr the american meaning. i was thinking you were being crude

Yep, here in England asses are donkeys, butts are cigarette ends, buns are round cakes and fannies are definately not mentioned in polite company! I think that 'bum' for bottom is OK, it just sounds a little comical. Deriere is sometimes used and I personally like the Winnie the Pooh type term - sit-upon. Anyway, you are quite right, they rarely look realistic on Poser figures.

I'm mostly into animation myself, P5 and Vue Pro, and usually find the best way to get over the bad bits of poser figures is simply to cheat. Use camera angles, foliage, lighting etc. to obscure the problems. Also most of my characters tend to be clothed, which makes things easier.

I have had occasion to notice however, that the much maligned Judy has a much better designed bum than most, and as for her fanny...

John (in England)

Mathman -dynamic deformers "Good idea". If maybe one that could be made which could move the right vertices depending on the pose. Of course even the static poses don't look that good but some of the poses the "whachamacallit" looks ridiculous.... What an education you get on forums. If some of you are old enough to remember a song written by "The Band" called "Take A Load Off of Fanny".It must have raised a bunch of snickers in Britain:}

OOPs Sorry the name of the song was called the "The Weight" and the chorus was "Take A Load off Fanny"

Feeling about half past dead here, 1 a.m. and I've been up since 6, well remember Robbie Robertson's "the Weight" and never thought about sniggering at the time. If you've a load for free though, just put the load right on me...

John

PS. "Snickers" in the UK are an item of confectionary featuring peanuts. Dirty laughs are "sniggers"

John

I went back to have a look at Steven Stahlberg site. That is fantastic looking model and it looks like he definitely got the shape right. However, apart from probably a far superior rigging and texture creation tools. The basic mesh of the model does not look any more complicated that of the models that are made for Poser. I don't see this as a problem with the Poser program as much as it is a great job of mesh modeling. Which mesh creation is not done in Poser anyway.. Maybe I am wrong since I don't do modeling and know the limitations of Poser. But I think someone could create a similar figure which would work perfectly fine in Poser. I agree with John (from England about P4 Judy). The best renders of backsides I have seen from this forum have been of P5 Judy. Maybe it would be possible to convert the Steven Stahlberg mesh over to a Poser or Daz Studio Format.. I know I would buy it!!!

" I went back to have a look at Steven Stahlberg site. That is fantastic looking model and it looks like he definitely got the shape right. However, apart from probably a far superior rigging and texture creation tools. The basic mesh of the model does not look any more complicated that of the models that are made for Poser. I don't see this as a problem with the Poser program as much as it is a great job of mesh modeling. Which mesh creation is not done in Poser anyway..
Maybe I am wrong since I don't do modeling and know the limitations of Poser."

Well, you're right in the fact that his meshes aren't any more complex than say DAZ meshes. However, Maya does things a lot differently than Poser. In programs like Maya and 3dsMax, Lightwave, etc.. the joints are controlled by "weight maps", and not "falloff zones" like they are in Poser. Weight maps provide much more realistic and flexible bending and jointing than the old meathod used in poser. So figures will look much better when posed or animated, and result in less "imperfections". Not to mention the rigging tools in these other apps are more sophisticated, and allow the animator more control.

Meshes made for character animation in most other apps aren't usually as high in poly count as Daz meshes are so that they can be more easily rigged and manipulated. In some apps, you can "mesh smooth" the mesh object only at rendertime, so as to save you from working with such a heavy polycount when animating or posing. Poser 5 has a similar option that works well called "smooth polygons", but leaves you with little or no control over how much smoothing you want.

Richard's characters probably wouldn't looks AS GOOD if converted to Poser. Reason being the difference in the way the applications work with joints and skinning. Poser just isn't as sophisticated in that department, and so many of the problem areas we find in most models would probably still exist to some degree, regardless of the quality of the model. Message edited on: 06/07/2004 20:16

Drats!! MAXXX You bursted my bubble! Well I guess you can't have champaign on a beer budget! Thanks for the info... There goes any hope of the book called "How to create Photorealistic Animations At Home On A Low Budget" Of course who would have thought 5 years ago that Poser characters would look as good as they do now. I think some people have come up with some pretty clever workarounds. After all its all binary code creating optical illusions of 2-D image bits...