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

They sent it out via e-mail, too. It does look very promising!

Wow! Even more promising than the renders are the comments from users.

I kept my hopes high for this new CL crew and maybe, just maybe, it wasn't in vain.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 19:46

It's worth the wait. For those who wanted to see some renders by community members, now's your chance!

That stuff looks awesome, and I think in the months ahead we'll see folks push these new features even further.

"...The new programming improvements to the cloth room have completely changed my way of working. In my opinion this is the way forward. The dynamic strand based hair now really looks like real hair." "...the advancements to the lighting system have almost brought me to rapture. Integrated Image Based Lighting (That renders FAST!), Point Lights, Soft Raytraced Shadows, Ambient Occlusion, and Faster Atmosphere Rendering all have me totally re-thinking the way I set up " "...When Curious Labs told us that P6 was going to be enhancements to current features, they were, in my opinion, grossly understating. The new lighting itself is worth the upgrade price. IBL is a dream come true, and the point lighting is great! " Sound good!

I for one cannot wait for my package to arrive!

The light photons seem to improve in Poser 6 but the renderer, lightings, and color still look crap. I assume that P6 still use the same renderer engine from P3 to P5 sheesh! BTW I am expecting to get my preordered P6 next week but not too thrilled to get it.

I assume that P6 still use the same renderer engine from P3 to P5 sheesh!

Correct. The old scanline renderer is still there, if you need it. But CL also added the Firefly (Tempest) renderer as an alternative in P5.

BTW I am expecting to get my preordered P6 next week but not too thrilled to get it.

Download or box?

Box

randym77, Yes, this is the same newsletter they emailed me.

Gweb, still raining on the render parade.. What do you use to render your images, and can I see some samples of them somewhere? Thanks.

The poser 5 renderer is very good and the poser 6 one will be better.

There is some pretty work... and that crew does sound enthusiastic.

Looks pretty good, from what little I've seen so far. I never bought P5 because of various issues. If P6 comes with all the glitches and the other problems that P5 came with (license problems, spyware, etc.), I'm not touching it with a 10-foot pole. I don't mean to seem cynical, but P5 really irked me to the point of losing interest in it. I'm wondering who got to beta test P6. Just curious. I've been out of the loop for a while and I'm not up to date on what's been going on much with Poser. I wonder if they had only exclusive beta testers of folks they cosider "elites" as they did last time. Melanie

"Spyware"? What spyware?

When P5 was first released, there was a big to-do about it containing spyware. One of the reasons I refused to buy it. Curious Labs claimed it was just for marketing purposes, but there were a lot of complaints about it. Melanie

I'm a little confused over the talk here about the renderer. Am I to understand that Poser 6 is using the same render engine as the last few versions, but there are improvements made to it? But anyway, I agree, the comments made by the folks at RDNA are very encouraging and exciting. Counting the days.....

Poser 5 added a new renderer - Firefly. It is not the same as the renderer the previous versions of Poser used. Poser 6 will use the same renderer, but it's got new features. It's been upgraded over the years, and Poser 6 will take advantage of those upgrades.

Has anybody got any news on general program performance/stability? I.e, is Poser 6 quicker to start-up, faster to operate within etc? Seen a lot about new featurs, but not much about the general clunkiness of P5 being improved.

IMO, you have to take these "testimonials" with a few grains of salt. These people are probably getting at least a free copy of Poser 6 in return for their reviews, and possibly other compensation. Plus, CL sure wouldn't release any reviews that were less than glowing.

That said...one of the reviewers did say that the cloth and hair rooms work much better now, which I take as a good sign. And the fact that they've dumped Windows 98 and Windows ME compatibility overboard is also a good thing. Legacy support often makes software bloated and unstable, IME.

I don't know, R77. I doubt these people would put their reps on the line for a couple bucks. Jarm wrote: "Has anybody got any news on general program performance/stability?" That's what I'm interested in most. Here are some hopeful quotes from the reviews: "...advanced and hyper-stable version of this software" and "...Integrated Image Based Lighting (That renders FAST!)" and "...you have a stable and fun program!" Heh, stable and fun. Something P5 surely was NOT, for me anyway.

Like I said before that the photons seem to improve in Poser 6 for true shading and subsurface scatter to work but the color shading is still sh*t $#@$#@#. I am not too enthanisic to get a copy of Poser 6 period! Firefly doesnt help renderer in anyway except the maps, matrials. Renderer really need upgrade so bad. I hate the coal painting on every images in Poser. Renderer is the last thing that need the UPGRADE to make it worthy for professional use. Anyhow I get sick of importing and exporting poser scenes to other softwares that can do better renderer.

I want to add that Poser 6 probably isnt worth upgrade with all that photon features because it won't be used when exporting the scene into other software for renderer. I hope that other little things in clothing, hair room will make every of my dollar worth....

If you base the value of an upgrade on one feature then your chances of being disappointed are a lot higher than most. I don't think it's fair to gauge the overall worthiness of a software upgrade on one feature.

As for whether or not the upgrade will be worth every dollar you paid for it, I've paid $495 to $895 for upgrades (not full versions) that didn't have every single feature that I had wished for, or that still had bugs in it and required 2 or 3 patches. (LightWave and 3DS Max come to mind). But you know what? When comparing the value of all of the new features to those that I wished for, the new features won out.

You will get out of any software package what you put in to it. I've seen some amazing renders in the galleries by people who have taken the time to learn the materials room in Poser 5 ... and I suspect with the new lighting and rendering features the quality of the renders will hit the roof in the right hands.

Message edited on: 03/19/2005 14:12

It is true that my disappointment are higher than most. Renderer is my only hope for uprade to promote my project image. Yes I have seen some amazing renders in the galleries. To be honest with you I did not find single one that I was looking for. I have seen 'holy grail' renders in other high end softwares because it make their character organic looking. The Poser renderer DOES NOT make figs organic looking and it is rather coal paint renderer that I have always seen in the galleries.

It isn't fair to blame it all on the renderer. It also depends on materials used, light settings and positioning, and the skill level of the person that is using it. The only thing I can say is that the only test you will be able to use is to put it through the paces yourself ... but in addition to learning about the renderer, ALSO pay attention to materials and lighting. They all work in concert to produce the look that you are looking for.

Can you make like this with Poser renderer? Any objection?

GWEB-Your gallery is STILL empty. Do you have a website that we can visit to check out your work? Please add my name to the list of folks who'd like to see your images (quoting from your message #23 from above) "Anyhow I get sick of importing and exporting poser scenes to other softwares that can do better renderer." Post those renders. We may agree with you. We can then get CL to include a "better renderer" in Poser 7.

Very nice render, GWeb, but in my eyes it is still not quite realistic because I don't see realistic skin (at least, as I perceive it), or mouth texture and moisture. And that isn't to dis your render, because it is VERY nice! The point I'm making is while your lighting is very nice, and the focus control adds a lot of interest to the render, I would be looking for a different kind of realism. A lot of what makes up your render there is the lighting and camera features, and not all the renderer. "Realism" is in the eye of the beholder, not the renderer. A lot of what you are basing your opinion on is artistic interpretation and execution, and not "the renderer."

Wait 'til my Poser6 gets here. Then we'll see. Nice pic.

Not nessecary real skin. The fig did not have displacement map or texture map. It used just the color shader with subsurface scatter and 'holy grail' renderer that made it organic looking. If you know the milk shader in the glass (it uses with subsurface scatter) that is what make things look organic. Subsurface scatter may also work on plant leaves making it look organic. No doubt that if Poser6 had new renderer with better color shading, it would make renderer a super organic looking because the material room is super tool killer. So you see my reasons why renderer upgrade is my highest priority.

Comment to add: Poser is character animator software. I as a customer expects that CL upgrade Poser making it organic looking. So I am disappointed that they did not work on this as #1 priority. Organic looking rednerer is a MUST for character animator. So they used old renderer from P3 is almost useless in P6 and it did not promote customer's animation projects. UNLESS customers want to use the nasty renderer (coal painting) for their still image portaits.

(sigh) GWeb, as I said in post 30, "realistic" and "organic" is in the eye of the beholder. Your render (which has since been deleted) did not look entirely organic to me ... the skin was too uniform. If you are basing "organic" on subsurface scattering, we already know that P6 has that feature. If I am not mistaken, you can also control the color of shadows in your material settings.

Just because you have not seen the criteria that you are looking for yet does not mean that Poser does not have the capability to do it. It only means that the people that created the renders might have an entirely different idea of "realism" and "holy grail" renders that you do. Art is very subjective. P5 may very well have had the features you seek all along ... for example, the "Real Skin Shader" fakes subsurface scattering and makes skin more organic. What it boils down to, is ANY software is only as capable as the people who use it. It doesn't really matter what other people can do with it, what really matters is what YOU can do with it.

Message edited on: 03/19/2005 15:26

Color in shadow??!! If shadow have color it won't be a SHADOW mO.Om We all know what "realistic" and "organic" are, it would be great if it is combined together. Please allow me to put defination what "Realistic" and "Organic" are: Realistic - is based on detail of maps such as texture, displacement, and based on real world maps. Organic - is biologic looking shader such as subsurface scatter; a organic milk in a glass and sunlight through the leaves that simpify organic form to man's eye. That is why I hardly to sit still while complaining about Poser6 renderer.

LOL If we are going to get into semantics about what "organic" means, then we do have a problem. I was under the impression that "organic" meant anything that was related to a living organism. But then, Webster's dictionary might be wrong. 8-) To me, "organic" textures demonstrate a randomness in appearance that can often be reproduced by fractal geometry. You have that capability already in the P5 material editor. It has nothing to do with the renderer. This thread has gone way off course. I'll let it rest here. If someone else wants to drag this on, be my guest. 8-)

Shadows do have color ... really. That is all I am going to say :)

(beep) wrong answer. Shadow lessen the color tempature. 8-)

Right but they also take the complimentary color since the eyes compensate. Red light would lead to a greenish shadow, orange would lead to blue etc. This is speaking as an illustrator, primarily, but there is color there that is often compensated from the the way eyes take color in.

Hmm interesting issue about the shadow. I really think what you said should be part of material manipulation that interacts with shadow tempature. That just came to my mind on shadow problem in poser renderer. In the current poser renderer, it appears that the shadow paints with grayscale over the colors. That is how I assume that renderer paints the images like coal painting method. I would like CL to try to interact the shadow tempature with color tempature, it probably would make render better looking. I would like this implemented in Poser 6 SP1 release. Other suggestion for shadow and light manipulation for Poser7. A new light controls in the material room, the light tempature and what color may be manipulated with specific materials or object. I would name it Chameleon. What do you guys think?

I think that you need to walk away from the computer and all that numerical talk of color temperature and photons... and go look outside at what real light and shadow do before further discussion of what is "realistic" or "organic". Light is colored, and shadows are colored. Duh! What we perceive as light and shadow is all an electromagnetic illusion. The color of light as perceived depends upon the color of the originating source (like our yellow sun), how much atmosphere it has bounced through (late in the day only longer waves penetrate), and other factors. The color of shadows depend upon the sky color and the light color as well as the object color. Anybody who has watched the ocean year-round understands the influence of sky color. When doing Poser characters, I never leave the defaults as black ambient, because that is only suitable for dead things, people in dungeons, or absolute space. I also don't leave the shadow set at 1.0 because here on earth, even inside a dog there wouldn't be absolute black. If you see gallery images where there is a "coal painting" effect, that is only because the ARTIST didn't bother to go in and change the dials. Not the program's fault. The artist's. I have given talks on the nature of light and color in the open air. There are also very good books on the topic. However, the best method is to walk outside, observe carefully, and then go back and try to duplicate the effect for yourself. Carolly

What Carolly said. Sometimes, you have to step away from the computer.

I remember back in the '70s or '80s, someone discovered that the "trick" to making computer graphics objects look real was to use colored highlights. Previously, they'd been using white highlights on everything. Finally someone started using colored highlights, and low and behold, bronze pots suddenly looked like bronze, instead of like plastic. This was such a big story it make Time Magazine. Of course, it was hardly news to old-fashioned artists. I suspect most of them thought it was hilarious that it took the computer graphics folks so long to figure it out.

OK, so I lied. I'm back. LOLOL There is one very good thing about this community. Its members are known for pushing Poser beyond what anyone ever expected. And as far as I am concerned, people are just beginning to tap into some of the features we found in Poser 5. With Poser 6 now, I have a feeling it is time for our community to really come into its own. And I have a very good feeling that there will be lots of people rising up to the challenge to show us what P6 is really capable of.

What do you guys think? If I recall correctly, the firefly renderer and material nodes systems are not Curious Lab's. They are licencing the technology. Any changes CL wants will have to be submitted to the owner of the renderer. If I understand what your asking for correctly, such a change would be rather significant amount of programing and would probably exceed the amount of work they would put into a SR1. Service releases usually concentrate on things that are broken, not adding features.

Carolly, I do not want to mention what I am capable of. I have developed AI with hi-speed video cameras to identify and measure things even bolts or count clutters for industrial use. All light that refected from object is based on the tempature of chemcials. Color is still part of tempature light. Some cameras are capable to capture body heat. Some heat send out infra light and some cameras can capture it. So my point is that anything that heat CREATES light. The shadow is supposed to decrease color tempature.

Carolly, A comment for you to ponder about the light. Some sensitive camera are capable to capture history of footprints within seconds because the body gathered the heat to the surface that produces very low light wavelength. When an object that obstacle the sunlight to the surface, it only lessen the light tempature and it cools the surface. The surface still produce some color because of indirect light came from other sources known as Global Illumination. So the shadow are not color property unless your talking about very low light wavelenth from an object; subsurface scatter or converted lights.

So the shadow are not color property unless your talking about very low light wavelenth from an object; subsurface scatter or converted lights. GWeb, are you saying that shadows have no color at all? Or that the color we see in shadows isn't really shadows, but something else? I guess I'm confused. When you see color in shadow, what does it matter in the artistic sense whether it comes from indirect light or direct light, or hot or cold? It LOOKS the same to your eyes, regardless of where it comes from or what causes it. To reproduce what you see in art, you paint with the colors you see, or you use textures that reflect what you see, or you use material calculations to reflect what you see. If I load a picture in to Photoshop, and I use the eyedropper to lift a color from a shadow, I get a formula of the amount of red, green, and blue that are in that shadow. If there is no color in the shadow as you say, the red green and blue values would be equal (0,0,0 or 112, 112, 112, or whatever). But, I doubt you will see those equal values (ie: shades of gray) in the shadows in a photograph. ANY variation from those equal numbers means that there IS color in the shadows. To achieve that look in Poser, to get things away from the dark "coal paint render" that you are complaining about, you change the ambient colors of the materials. It is not a function of the renderer as you seem to think.

(sigh) I give up but I will still complain about renderer thats all.

FireFly sucks !!!! RIB renderer sucks

Shadow in Poser sucks too!!

Give it a rest, please?