Hi guys Just wanted to start a thread regarding realism in poser. Ive heard alot of people dissing poser recently for various reasons and realism was one of them. Just wanted your thoughts on realism in Poser basically? Ive been working on a V3 character for a long time now and she is just about taking shape. Basically I want to create a real looking morph for V3. I may put it in the freestuff should there be enough positive feedback. Hopefully this image proves that a certain amount of realism can be acheived. http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=716098&Start=1&Artist=paulwillocks&ByArtist=Yes

Realism? Hmmm... The image supplied looks more like airbrushed art to me (not that that is a bad thing). Without real lighting, there is no way Poser can come close to engines with radiosity, caustics, and HDRI. I've seen some good light sets that mimic GI well, but at what cost I wonder (in render times). The problem is in order to get Poser even to a rudimentary realism in renders takes ridiculous amounts of fiddling, preparation, and know-how whereas other (albethey more expensive) applications can achieve near photographic realism quickly and efficiently - indistinguishable photographic realism can be done with knowledgeable preparation in less than a lifetime as well. There are some indispensible features of Poser that I could not do without, but its rendering capabilities are not one of them. Kuroyume

Oh yeah..Poser can get the realism effect. Only two that I know. Just think when Poser 1, 2 or 3, how the renders were then compared to now. Never know in the next 2 versions of poser (If so). How realistic the renders will be, that we will have a difficult time, figuring out what is real and not. Their would have to be some parts of the render to give it away that it was done in Poser. 1.) This was done in PP http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=692390 2.) Not my best. But done in P5 http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=704734&Start=1&Artist=Robo2010&ByArtist=Yes

I think it can if one is cautious regarding lighting and uses good textures of course. Here's a few of mine that I think acheived it somewhat: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=665144 http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=320119 (nudity - intended to more photographic) a very old portrait shot: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=203937 And this new one on my site (partial nudity): http://www.mysticglade.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=68 Those are only a few but it shows that I think that Poser can do it ;-)

Attached Link: http://secure.daz3d.com/galleries/index.php?id=1522

There's no reason why Poser should not be able to create realistic renders (I'd say the greatest challenge would be the lack of light linking, which makes it a little harder to place bounce lights). Global illumination is one way of creating realistic imagery, but certainly not the only one. I would estimate that >95% of all past Hollywood CG shots were created without GI.

Message edited on: 07/14/2004 13:03

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=711698&Start=1&Artist=neftis&ByArtist=Yes

Hello, I like the firefly renderer. My p5 cat render received a lots of comments lately. I think it's fair to say that with a good subject, textures and lights, it can renders pretty well.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=553712

Well, I'm sure with Firefly you can achieve some excellent realism... with LOTS of work. Nothing wrong with working for it, but it would take incredible amounts of time and patience to achieve levels of realism like the example I've linked to above.

Not that it's EASY to get in other apps either... but it is all that much more difficult to get it directly in Poser. I'd take a shot at it, but I don't have the time to spend test-rendering the results. ;-)

Anyway, I have yet to see someone put out a render directly from Poser that's truly photographic, without the need for detailing the results beyond that of color correction in photoshop. But I HAVE seen people do it in other apps. Don't know if that means anything exactly, but just an observation.

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced its all about lighting. Unfortunately I had to pop into photoshop to brighten up the image but if poser could use photoshop plugin filters then I think we could start to see some pretty realistic images straight out of the box.

Here's one I posted today for the Classic Pinups contest.

The models certainly have enough detail these days (this one is Victoria 3 by Daz) so the limitation must be in the lighting.

"The models certainly have enough detail these days (this one is Victoria 3 by Daz) so the limitation must be in the lighting."

The lighting is definitely hard to work with. I can't stand not being able to just manually place a targeted spotlight in a scene, and using that bizarre "3D light sphere" interface do-dad is a pain. Some people like it, but I'm not a fan. I also don't enjoy having to mess around with the shadow cameras for each light.

I think aside from better lighting rigs, the main factor missing from Poser to achieve realism in your renders is better jointing system. The old "falloff" joints it uses are inferior compared to what's out there in other apps. Weight mapping is a much better way to get realistic bending, etc.

Message edited on: 07/14/2004 14:30

Poser can create realistic renders but the person who is using Poser is a different matter....I can't.....

I have to agree that the lighting makes the most difference, a simple background seems to help too. I did a series of renders of tatoos that I think look a lot like photographs, and these are done with Judy. Sorry about the size you probably can`t see it very well

All in all, it's really obvious Poser can't achieve realism. I mean, just look at this rediculous attempt. All this talk about GI, HDRI, Radiosity, Bounce Lighting, Subsurface scattering!!!!

Shrek 2 is the first movie to use GI in a significant number of shots (80%). And they didn't even attempt realism.

Lord of the Rings was the first movie to use subsurface scattering, and that was only in the third installment. And they didn't use bounce lighting.

Numanoid walks off, wandering whether Leonardo used HDRI or Subsurface Scattering for that silly picture of the smiling chick with the funny hairdo.

maybe poser CAN make a decent render. however, i don't have the patience to spend the time tweaking it, TRYING to get a decent render. i don't have that trouble in Bryce, or Lightwave....so...i'm always gonna be one of those you all look down on in the gallery because i choose to render with another app. i only have so many hours in my day.

Look down on you? You know how to use Bryce and Lightwave, so we should look up, not down, lol.

" All in all, it's really obvious Poser can't achieve realism. I mean, just look at this rediculous attempt. All this talk about GI, HDRI, Radiosity, Bounce Lighting, Subsurface scattering!!!! Shrek 2 is the first movie to use GI in a significant number of shots (80%). And they didn't even attempt realism." The reason it wasn't used before is because it was too expensive for the FX studios to render GI. Nowadays, it's much faster than it was even a year ago, so it's definitely a viable option now. Also, about that picture you posted, is that from the Mec4D website? If so, can you be absolutely sure it was rendered in Poser? I'm pretty sure Cath works with other programs as well. Anyway, just asking.

I know GI is a viable option, but I don't see it as a neccesity for realism. I have seen realistic 3D renders dating back to five years ago, and then there was nothing like GI or bounce lighting, so I think that the insistance on some new technologies are sometimes over emphasized. The secret is not to get new technologies, but to understand the limits of the current ones, and to know how to push those limits beyond what was intended to get the effect you want. That render is by 3Dream, and claims to have no postwork. And it is a Poser model, so I assume it is a Poser render. I have similar renders but I am not at my Poser PC now, some of us are forced to work by the evil capitalist society that won't let me sit at home and play with Poser all day. PS. I am not saying that new technologies are bad, or not neccesary, I am just saying that the lack of certain technologies in Poser are not the reason why realism is so hard in Poser. Realism is actually very subjective. I have seen photos that look unreal, and pencil sketches that look real. And what may look like realism in Poser to one person may not look like realism to another.

Oh I agree with you there. GI isn't the only way to achieve realism. Not at all.

But I still think the Poser lighting system is inferior and far more difficult to operate than it should be. It's the strangest lighting rig I've ever used in any 3D application. Also, I don't feel just because something can be done "the old fashioned way", that newer technologies shouldn't be an option in the software. I rarely use GI in my work anyway, but once in a while I do like to treat myself if the project calls for it.

It should also be pointed out too that Radiosity and other GI lighting solutions are not always EASY. There's still no 'make art' button with GI. It may seem like the ultimate answer to most people here, but people probably don't realise that they will still need to know a thing or two about lighting and possibly even PHYSICS when using it in order to get optimal results.

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 01:17

If it's from Mec4D, it's very likely rendered in Cinema 4D, which has a very good GI renderer, including subsurface scattering (it was this site which managed to force me to learn how to use C4D's subsurface scattering).

This thread rocks, because it got me rethinking the way in which I render and I've tried some new techniques (for me) This is a 3 light setup. Only one light has shadow, set to 1. and a map of 1024. Depth Cueing is on. One light is kind of bright and the other is very dim with a hint of color, beige. It's out of the box, with a bit of color correction and of course, hair added in PS. -WTB

The background is from Poor Man's HDRI by RDNA; the lights from Global Illumination by Shademaster. Both freebies

Attached Link: http://day.uws.edu.au/~10234062/report.htm

Here is something cool to read about the lighting preferability of 3D artists.

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 04:57

That's a good article, Neftis. And confirms what I had already known all along... as of right now, direct lighting is still the most preferred meathod, but with the increase in power and the developement of new techniques, GI lighting will soon be the overall lighting of choice for CG Professionals. Here's some good quotes: " 3. The changing point when computers become faster would allow computation of GI lighting to be equivalent to the speed of Direct lighting; would mean that artist no longer depend on Direct lighting for photo real images or animations and solely on GI lighting technology." "The results support the hypothesis of artist preferring GI lighting than Direct lighting; motivated by the idea of GI rendering in the future to have similar calculation times. The frequency and bar graph (refer to Appendix B, question 14 for frequency and bar chart) demonstrate the artists preferability if GI lighting was fast enough to compete in speed with direct lighting thus majority of participants of GI lighting in this circumstance was 85%." "In the future, GI lighting will mainly be used in production and Direct lighting discarded."

To put it simple: Even the best light set does not replace global illumination. But at the same time, global illumination does not replace lighting skills. If you don't know how to create a dramatic, joyful or action-loaded mood with traditional lighting, chances are you won't be able to do that with GI either.

GI + talent is sure the best combination for a successful render...That IS a fact :) Direct lights + talent can truly be on the same direction... So my guess is that talent remain the base of it all;)

Yep. You can't buy talent, unfortunately, but you can train your lighting skills. In any app.

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 11:26

Attached Link: http://secure.daz3d.com/galleries/index.php?id=3382

I was just browsing through the DAZ galleries, and when I came upon this image I immediately thought of this thread. This one blew me away, and it is purely Poser and Photoshop. Man, oh man, what a great job. Yes, I do think Poser can do realism.

I think Poser can do realism too - an it's not a difficult objective. However, I just think in order for image output to compete on the level of other software packages would take an enormous amount of time and patience, which most artists don't have much of either. By the way, Deecey, that's a very cool image you linked to, but there are elements in there that keep it from being convincingly photoreal. I'm sure the artist wasn't going for PHOTO realism there anyway (there's a difference between PHOTOrealism and realism), so I won't bother to point out why it falls short of that. I think what we're confusing here is the difference between realism and photorealism. Realism is something you can achieve quite easily in Poser and almost any other 3D package out there. Photorealism (where the image is almost completely indistinguishable from a photo) is a LOT harder to do, and is better tackled with the assistance of GI lighting. There's no disputing that fact. But I agree, it takes an artist to make the art... you gotta have the skills and talent to make a picture look it's best regardless. :-)

.bookmark