Does anyone know if there will be network rendering in Poser 6? Or we'll have to wait for Poser 11...

11 :) Actually I havn't a clue.

i have no knowlege, either, but I strongly suspect not. CL is not animation-agressive in Poser. There are small problems with animation that definately would have been fixed if animation were a dominant feature of the program. Poser is a "Posing" program. As an animator, I hope I am totally wrong. ::::: Opera :::::

As an animator, Opera, I also agree with you.

HOWEVER, I think CL definitely want to progress Poser further as an animation tool, which makes me think we might actually see some form of native network rendering in P6. I should hope so, with all the other advanced rendering features they are promising. There's no doubt, with things like SSS and some of the lighting features they have indicated, that render times would be increased greatly, so network rendering at this point makes perfect sense.

Animation is where 3D truly makes it's usefulness as an artistic medium fully realized. 3D empowers animators to do things they couldn't do quite as efficiently before. Given the climate of the 3D genre in general, it would almost appear to be financial suicide if Curious Labs doesn't pay attention to the needs and wants of animators who have an interest in utilizing their product. Animators have been asking for network rendering capability natively in Poser for a while now. Especially since the Firefly renderer was introduced in P5. Although I find the RIB export format and other options like platform-specific 3rd-party plugins (Bodystudio, etc.), to be sufficient for integrating Poser into other high end network-capable software, most hobbyists or "weekend warrior" animators don't find that solution very useful to them. Even professionals would like to have the option to run certain projects through the resident application to save time.

Bottom line: I'm going to upgrade to P6 regardless (actually looking forward to it), but it might be the last upgrade I ever do on a Curious Labs product if there's no native network rendering capability in this version.

I will be upgrading, of course. And, if I AM wrong about CL caring about new animation features....I hope they fix the stupid frame indicator (only goes to 999) and improve the way you pick the frame range, for goodness sake. ::::: Opera :::::

Personally i have never been limited by the 999 frame counter You can render much longer animations in poser but why would you want to? As an apsiring animated filmmaker I tend to think in terms of "takes" if you watch a movie, every time the camera shot changes thats a seperate "take" these "takes" are often less than 30 seconds. and of course edited together in post production to create the appearance of a seamless continous shot. the most important aspect of movie making is video NLE and post production

Yeah Opera, I've never really got your obsession with this. My average shot is 120-200 frames at 24 FPS. I think the longest continual shot I've rendered in Poser to date was 300 frames. As it is I had to restart that shot in the middle twice because Poser choked on it. (But My comp was pretty messed up at the time, and poser has behaved "a bit" better since a reformat) while there are some rare instances where you might want some really grand flythru of a scene or something, for most things the audience is going to get bored stiff if you don't change cameras often. Just my opinion of course.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=2116014

It is not an obsession, it is a legit problem for my working style.

Yes, Wolf, I am familiar with the grammar of takes and the answer to your question of "why would you want to" is easy: fast takes have their place -- but so do long takes- and I perfer to work with one file on my long takes, because I can encompass the entire rhythm, sequence, camera movement and mood without having to jump from pz3 to pz3, and without the difficulties of stitching seamlessly.

There are other styles besides MTV. Just because trite youth has an attention span of .38 seconds does not mean a true filmmaker has to pander to this abnormality. In my opinion, filmakers and filmgoers who are addicted to lightening takes and cannot abide something long and sensual are hiding from intimacy. Now that is clearly just my opinion.

For an example of a long take, please see my one minute, 1800 frame, one-take animation, link attached.

Berserga, you've previously made the "choked on it" response as if in asnwer to why a person would only work with short animations, which (correct me if I am wrong) leads me to believe you are not rendereing out to individual frames, since a crash or freeze while rendering out to individual frames is not serious; one may, perhaps, lose one frame. In either case, why is Poser choking when rendering your animations? Have you gotten to the bottom of that?

::::: Opera :::::

Well even" Lord of the rings" has very few long lingering shots, so we are not just talking about Music videos. how do you handle camera cuts in scenes where there is rapid interaction between two or more actors ???? and the camera is cutting back and forth between the faces for reactions shots. this will be impossible in poser and even in high end app where camera switching during render is possible, it still not recomended for a variety of reasons.

whoa there... all I meant by obsession (and it was a bit tounge in cheek mind you) was that I've seen you post about it several times in various threads. :) I do render to individual frames, so I had to Restart rendering FROM the frame where it hung. Not a major problem but a nuisance with long over night renders.

yes, that is the main downfall, overnight renders. If the program fails, you are dead where it failed. I have been fortunate in that aspect, no overnight freeze or failure so far. But that overnight problem is true if you are over 999 frames or under. I admit to 'persistent' on that 999 thing. ::::: Opera :::::

wolf, I would just use separate pz3s, short ones, for each take, just as you suggest, I am with you on that; I am not saying entire movies should be in one pz3, just the ability to have the frame callout box display correctly for those particular long cuts that happend to be over 999. ::::: Opera :::::

example of movies with many many long shots, over 30 seconds: sex lies and videotapes. my dinner with andre most films by robert altman The Lord Of The Rings movies I consider "of" the MTV generation, with all due respect to the director Peter Jackson. ::::: Opera :::::

Just curious but what exactly is your definition of "of the MTV generation" i and apparently many others though the LOTR trilogy was an excellent piece of filmmaking. wether it had long 1800 frame linger camera shots or not does not make it less legitmate or like MTV it was just good story telling.. but anyway we all have our own approaches.

Perhaps the shot at the end of The Two Toweres, following Gollum as he skulks through the woods, reevealing his plan for the Hobbits, is an example to consider. It's one continuous shot, several minutes long, one camera following Gollum through the scenery, sometimes close and sometimes not. It could be done with cutting, but it isn't. And Gollum is computer-animated. Another example comes as the end of the Kenneth Branagh production of Much Ado About Nothing. I suspect that some scenes in movies have a single long take, which is broken up in editing. But does it make sense to do CGI in the same way? Possibly you have some of the cut-away shots planned?

I want my MTV. :p

Antonia... my project is a mix and balance of long takes AND quick cuts, as needed for drama, so yes, some cutaway. I make each shot (cut) a separate pz3, even if it is only a handful of frames long. It just happens that the shot I used in my Lin 1-minute was one cut. You gave good examples of long takes there. Naturally one of the most famous is the first shot in Altman's "The Player" (five minutes of action and characterization with no cuts as the camera tracks around the lot.) I would also cite the famous crane shot pull back in Gone With the Wind, the approach of the frozen walker in Dr. Zhivago (then finished with fast quick cuts at the close-up) and a similar crane shot pull back in High Noon. Psychologically, the filmmaker is asking the viewer to enlarge the scope of his/her focus and feeling and empathy, to take in more of the significance of this single unique moment. Often the director will hold for tension, then move the camera (not cut) to draw forth this psychological transition. Tracking uninterrupted conveys a sense of emphasis. It also builds tension, as the viewer keeps expecting a cut. Once he/she realizes there is to be no relief, he may surrender to the 'meaning' of that shot's importance. Naturally a case can be made for the power of a dramtic jump cut just where unexpected, or a quick-fire sequnce of cuts to convey violence, speed and risk. No problem. But my objection to the MTV "ethos" is when quick-cutting is championed as great -- relentless, radical and unrelieved. Before MTV and the like, people could not tolerate four/five cuts per second (and faster) with no shot longer than about 2-3 seconds. These days, this MTV style is so pervasive, younger people think anything with shots lasting 4,8,16, 30 seconds are, like, boring man! MTV (through the directors they championed) sigmificantly changed the tolerance level for cuts. I have been told by young people in my family (and outside) that I refuse to understand that QC(quick cut)people simply process information more quickly, and that this machine-gun cutting is an ADVANCEMENT over the slow uptake of prior "print-oriented" and linear-speech orienceted 'ways of knowing'. I reject this totally, especially when QC is presented as needed for the ENTIRE piece with no contrasting long cuts, and I DON'T think it is good story-telling. However, Wolf, you would find many more who come down on your side of this opinion than mine. I think Jackson's team had a balance, but still leaned towards too-fast cutting, especially in battle scenes. Every time he pulled back, at Helm's Deep for instance, I hoped he would hold long enough for the viewer to soak in the immensity. But no...the cut would always come too soon for my taste. There was not one satisfying shot of the entirty of the Huron Forest at Helm's Deep nor of the overall of the Battle of Pelanor Fields. [As an aside, and as a 45-year fan of the paced, descriptive, brilliant literature of J.R.R. Tolkien (I've read it aloud to two generations of kids), I am not a big fan of the movie, but that is not due to the cutting per se.] ::::: Opera :::::

Look at traditional film; what Opera is talking about is a framing shot. One long shot to provide an overall capture of your intended action or setting, to be cut up with close-ups or break aways. This ensures that you don't have to deal with the dangers of screwing up your camera angles or lighting rig in recreating the overarcing shot that closeups knit together. It also provides a framework with sliding room; you aren't committed scene lengths, with only the option of cutting time. A closeup can be inserted into the framing sequence, and then literally slid up and down in the timeline until you get the effect you want...or find an effect you jazz on. It's a more traditional approach than the current 'plan and execute' mentality that exists in relation to CG in general. Take a look at the write ups that have been done on Pixar's 'The Incredibles'. The director for that one came from traditional cinema, and inflicted traditional workflow and methodology onto Pixar (including the long framing shots built upon with closeups and cutscenes). And it worked out beautifully.

yes, yes there is a place for everything, I just doubt that you really NEED more than 999 frames for an establishing shot. I mean with Posers limitations you may be hard pressed to have enough interesting stuff going on in one scene to justify a shot that long. As for other examples how about the beginning of "Touch of evil".

I have to agree that one of Pete Jackson's weaknesses as a director is how he treats the battle scenes. For one comparison, look at Waterloo, made in the early Seventies.

"You can render much longer animations in poser but why would you want to?" Well, I can think of a few good reasons why you'd want to. For example: I had a motion-captured fight scene between two characters. The fight sequence lasted around 4000 frames @ 30 FPS. That comes out to about 133 seconds, or just over 2 minutes. I happened to be using 3dsmax for this, so I set up the environment, lighting, etc. the way it should be for the shot. Then I set up several cameras (I believe I used 4 or 5 different cameras at different locations in the scene), and animated them if needed. Once I scrubbed through the animation in wireframe mode to ensure I had the shots I needed in each camera, I proceeded a batch render on all the cameras and let the renderer do it's job. Once everything was rendered, I had 4 different camera shots of the same long scene, which made the editor's job (who in this case was NOT me for a change) a lot easier. He was able to piece together all the shots with quickcuts and post-edited zomming/panning/trucking to make a compelling fight scene. Worked out quite well. Sure, we could have saved lots of render time just pre-concieving the cuts and rendering them out that way, but this gave us a lot more options to work with when editing. However, certain parts had to be rendered independantly and integrated into the footage later... like character expression or reaction close-ups, but it wasn't a bad deal in the end. :-)

Yeah Max,Like Cinema4DXL, is good for this type of thing but poser cant switch cameras during render and opera uses only poser for rendering.

The description of animate once, render four streams automatically from four cameras, edit as needed -- is quite exciting, but not necessary or practical for my project. I'll have all I can do to afford my time-budget on an initial one-choice render. But I remain in mode 'no worries' and perfectly happy. Basically I am making my editing decisions out front, then creating one pz3 for each take. Some are quite short, 25, 90, 150 frames, etc. Some are long, 2000 frames, perhaps more. Well.....perfectly happy except for that damn 999 display for current frame! ::::: Opera :::::

I just thought of something. I recall a shard of suspicion when watching the LOTR battle scenes....cut like an MTV video. 'Perhaps he cuts like this because he knows that with any lingering, the animation (although high up on the curve of state-of-the-art) will not convince.' In other words...since this is live action with inserted CG, the audience will not 'forgive' in the same way that an audience does in a purely animated sequence. Now in Mulan...those scenes of hordes pouring over the mountain...the director is 'okay' with mass-generated armies that are not perfectly photo-realistic, becuase the film is pure animation. And this: an example of a very long (WAY over 30 seconds) single take animated shot, even though inserted into live action movie: James Cameron's fly-over of the Titanic near the beginning of the voyage. It was not perfect. You can tell the characters walking the deck are computer generated. But Cameron was not afraid to let that scene linger, in slow motion. A few hundred million people have forgiven that shot, and love it. ::::: Opera :::::