I think we're getting a little off point here. The question "what is art" is not the central theme of the problem I see, but people keep making it about that. Here are some direct quotes that hopefully will make clear why there is cause to cry foul:

**main reason that ppl don't like poser is that it only use model import, cos you are not making the art it self but using coustem build model that is not yours

most CG artest who have learned Max, Maya or XSI would trun there nose up at Poser

you might want to consider messiah for animation. It's better than MB (imo) and cheaper. That way you can take the money saved and spend it on altering other people's work and saying it's your own art.

Me personally, and this is just my opinion and not any definite truth, do not think that an image like the girl where the model is pre made by someone else is as much art as if someone would have modeled, textured, and posed her himself.

I just like my work to be mine, not a modification of someone else's. I don't trace other people's drawings and rearrange them to make my 2d pictures, so why should I with my 3d ones?

I would take the rankest beginner's work in Max or Maya or MS Paint over yet another Poser render any day.
**In other words, the theme over and over is that if you don't model, you are not an artist, you are a plagiarist, which is a ridiculous point of view. And since Poser can't be used to model (mostly) then it everything you render in it is, by definition, not art. That is the absurd proposition that I find objectionable. I don't mind if you want to call me a technician, as I've never claimed to be an artist. When my gallery post gets a comment "beautiful art" - I shrug it off as a matter of opinion that is pleasing or displeasing as you see fit, but not relevent. What I care about is that my shader is better than it used to be after 100 hours of technical work, and I'm happy if somebody else uses my shader to make art in Poser. Similarly, if I were a modeler, and I made a cool model and somebody else used it in a movie, I'd be very pleased instead of calling the movie producer a plagiarist.

I can make the teapot in Max, LOL!

Lightwave has the teapot too.

yes, that's the point I made over there bb, that a case could be made that modeling is simply one "station" in a long pipeline, and I listed the stations (later lengthened by Dale.) Further reality check on the inflated notion of modeling being 'all that?'.....Shouldn't they be working with their hands sculpting objects in clay with no intermediary? (and then they could call in the technicians to scan it.)

I was exaggerating to make a point, not that modeling is not important and a highly demanding skill/craft/art, but that other stations in the pipeline were no less worthy of the same status as modeling.

A sculptor, or a digital modeller, must be brilliant in conveying the human form in an abstracted medium. So also must an animator be able to capture the subtleties and nuance of human movement in keyframes.

::::: Opera :::::

you know.. I'd love to see how they do if they did'nt have Max or Maya or XSI or Lightwave..

how they would do with what I started out with.

notepad.

yup. notepad. writing a program that then runs in POVRay. you see, they've created nothing with those fancy programs.. they've just pushed buttons and let the software do the modeling for them ;)

Ask them about 'motion capture'.  Isn't that a form of 'plagiarism'?  They certainly aren't creating the animated motions themselves - they are recording someone elses motions and applying them to a rigged figure.  How dare they! It is used in just about EVERY 3D CG movie out there.  Plagiarists! ;)

What?  There's something different between using stock figures and using stock motions?  Yeah, right....

I work on both ends of the spectrum. I use Poser, bryce, carrara, vue, lightwave and Max.
which onbe I use depends on what I'm doing and what result I want.
I can't do organic modeling, so Poser is still indespensible for me if I want animals or peopel in my renders.

wheatpenny (or anyone)
I know Poser assets can be brought into Max. But what about dynamic hair? If I bring a strand hair prop into Max, does Max know what to do with it using its own hair sim engine? (notice I did not ask if the actual Poser hair simulation could be moved intact into Max and then rendered....I did not hope for that!)

::::: Opera :::::

No, Poser dynamic hair is not exportable. You have to use the transmapped hair or make dynamic hair in the other app

anyone here have opinions about the power of Max for these two tool categories:

Max native hair dynamics (not extra-cost plugin)  vs poser hair room and simulation
Max native animation tools (no Motion Builder) vs Poser's animation features

::::: Opera :::::

I don't to much animation or dynamic hair, so I can't offer you anything there.

Quote - SARCASM ALERT:

Painters who don't weave their own canvas, or don't make their own paint from dirt and acetone like Da Vinci did, but shudder BUY paint in a fricking store, are not artists.

 
Well, Da Vinci's assistants made the paint. I paint gaming miniatures -- mostly for gaming purposes (I used to be big into Ancients), but a lot of times just cause they are cool figures. (Which is how I justify the non-fantasy figures, usually). I'm probably in the low 90% percentile of figure painters, and can approach 95% on a figure I really like. (This is not a great accomplishment, there are a lot of crappy painters out there. I am miles behind someone as good as paintrix http://www.wegotgame.net/jen/main.html, but I sometimes have won a 2nd or 3rd place at a gaming convention. I don't make my own figures (although I sometimes modify them.) As a matter of fact, some of the best sculptors of figures are no better painters than me, one of them is actually a pretty bad painter and has other people paint figures for his web-page.

Quote -

The only reason some around here get offended is because they just refuse to see what they are..... grown ups (some still kids perhaps) playing with a digital Barbie and Ken. That's all we are people.... Poser compared to Max/Maya is only a toy, but a cool toy.

Some people have done some pretty interesting stuff using Barbie, Ken, G.I. Joe, and various (mostly Japanese) action figures. There's someone who photographed a vampire story using a total of about fifteen dolls, mostly with home-made/modified costumes, and home-built sets. It came to about eighty photos. Someone else recreated Apollo 13 using GI joes and a home-build Apollo CM and LM interior. Someone else created a very lovingly built tribute to the Challenger crew based on their official crew photograph using a combination of G.I. Joes and Barbies -- he modified the heads to look like the actuall astronauts.

I'm interested to see the spectacular work aeilkema does in Maya/Max - or whatever other application he/she creates art in so much better than the crap he/she sees here in the galleries.  Do they let Poser users view those galleries?

I wonder if any of those people snubbing poser have ever contemplated the possibility that some artists actually use Poser for its originally intended purpose?  Or the notion that some of those pieces of "crap art" are currently sketched out and hanging in galleries as we speak?

Speaking of playing with Barbies.  My late great great great grandmother had quite a collection.  Not only did she have a collection, my great grandfather built her the mother of all barbie houses - which she spent the last 20 or so years of her life arranging decorations in.   To myself and a museum here in Illinois that really constituted a great piece of artwork.  She has been dead many years now - but people still find themselves in awe over her **BARBIES.
**I'm curious if they paint thier own textures?  And how real is that.  I challenge ANY Maya/Max arteest to a RL knitting, sewing, crocheting, quilting competition and well see  how they can stand up to the REAL thing. 

Quote - Note: My specific objection was the following:

a veteran 3DBuzz person dissed the Poser tools. He was trying to disparage VRay over (his favorite) MentalRay by insinuating VRay was "poser-like" since all you did was push a button and the render popped out.

I specifically elucidated the complex tools we now have in Poser7 only for the purpose of disabusing the person of the notion that Poser was a toy with only one button.

By the way, several of the 3DBuzz people correctly understood. While they still probably feel the entire Poser universe is beneath them, at least they now know Poser "needs to be tweaked" in order to achieve something advanced. I showcased and advanced render to illustrate this.

The problem I see with the whole thing here is that you are trying to respond to someones crappy emotional response with logic. Doesn't work that way. If someone is determined to look down his nose at something (which is an emotion, rather then fact), there's no fact in the world that will make him say, oh, you're right.
The issue is that some people using higher apps probably don't feel sufficiently appreciated, and get jealous when they see applications that some of them 'think' take less effort get attention.
There's also been many instances where unrefined poser renderings have made their way to more sophisticated galleries, and people who made them got all uipset because of the negative response they got, when they insisted their piece was woreth more then it was.

There are people with bad tempers, void of manners and unrealistic view on things everywhere. Even among artists or highly skilled people. Just because someone is a good artist, soent mean they have pleasant social skills, or just because someone has good technical 3D skills, doesn't mean they are capable of producing a visually pleasing piece.

It's not about the applications nearly as much as it is about personalities. There are bad apples and good apples on both sides.

I'm a good one, just ask me :tt2:

I challenge ANY Maya/Max arteest to a RL knitting, sewing, crocheting, quilting competition and well see  how they can stand up to the REAL thing. 

OOPS....I'm a lw user.  But, hey, I do all that stuff (except the knitting)pretty well, still, though I don't have the time for it of late.  My grandmother was a dollMAKER....she taught me a good deal.  I've never had a Barbie :*0  Maybe, that last bit sums up this whole thread.  Some make the dolls, others collect them for show.

When I was small I created many things with legos, and erector sets which I alone had imagined. I built these things because I was young, and it pleased me. I don't feel they were any less genuine because I didn't create the plastic or steel that went into producing them. I don't feel that the paintings I've done in my lifetime are any less genuine because I didn't collect the ingrediants that went into the paint, or the paper. I don't imagine a sculptor feels his work to be less valid because he didn't make the marble he brought to life, and I'm quite sure the animators at Pixar don't feel their work isn't as good as the amateur who makes all his own models, as hey haven't the time,  the making of the models is the modelers job, the rigging the riggers, etc*.* I don't see the logic behind their argument. Perhaps they are Nihilists.

I love your shaders.  I wonder if I could simulate them in lw.  (Poser frustrates me, too much lookin for stuff.)

Quote - My latest shaders - the eyes. Not art of course but it's not plagiarism either.

Oh, yeah, but did you invent the math you're using??? :tt2:

Otay, kidding aside, you're friggin awesome!

Thanks Poppi.

Why don't you make a new runtime and put just my shaders in there? Then they're easy to find :biggrin:

Is there a spec somewhere for lw shader technology? I probably could make a version of matmatic (shader generator I made for Poser) that would work in other apps too, as long as the app has math nodes or equivalent.

as long as the app has math nodes or equivalent.....yeah, lw has math nodes.  that's why i didn't catch your "sarcasm".  I am lost with the danged things.  let alone when to input as a vector, or otherwise.  I think I might be able to copy and tweak your node setups, though and come up with something.  I've been trying my best to do a decent sss simulation and looks as if you are headed in that direction as well.

I'm confused. I was not being sarcastic about making shaders for other apps. I just don't have the other apps. But if I had a spec for how the shaders are stored in files, I could make them and you could load them. Also, where there are equivalent operations on a given subset of functionality, I could generate shaders for other apps from the same scripts i use in poser. For example, I bet I could make my cloth shaders for lw because it's all math.

I bet I could make my cloth shaders for lw because it's all math.   YUP....but where might I find these "specs" you need to do this?

Ever thought of doing shaders for Vue ??? I'm pretty sure that has math nodes (I've been too scared to look so far)

bagginsbill, a shader generating tool for other applications would be wonderful. As of right now, importing Poser figures with procedural shaders into Vue means recreating similar shaders in Vue, which has a shader tree structure similar to Poser.
Similar, but not identical.

It should be possible to make a shader converter between Poser and Vue. I'd pay for that, so would quite a few others I think.

Converting the basics would be really easy I bet. Some nodes wouldn't translate because they have no direct equivalent I suppose, but you could get close. For example, Poser's implementation of Cellular is probably not exactly the same as others. If you guys want to give me some pointers to any docs I could read on the file formats and how the nodes work in these other systems I'd be happy to look into it. Also, giving me samples of basic shaders so I can verify that I'm replicating the same contents would be good.

I've also thought about getting started on writing a Poser shader-to-matmatic converter - basically take any existing shader made however you made it and de-compile it into a matmatic script. Then if I had compilers for other engines, you could just point it at a Poser shader and it would de-compile to matmatic and then compile to lw or vue.

Poppi - the Loom script I posted in the RDNA node cult has all the math for calculating weave patterns, applying multiple thread colors, making plaids, doing the micro-thread pattern, loose fibers, distorted weaves, etc. It is expressed in matmatic mathematical notation - that gets compiled into a Poser shader tree automatically. I could compile it into other systems pretty easily.

Loom Script
Plaids Using the Loom
Making your own weave patterns
Downloading weave patterns
Loom showing off

And max and cararra and cinema and maya, IIRC they all have the ability to do complex procedural shaders.  I know for sure Max can, I used them a fair amount, and it's capable of all that Poser can do and then some.

I'm VERY humbled though with Bagginsbills tenacity to put them all together. I'm not lacking in math, but I'm very much lacking in patence to go in as much depth and detail with proceduaral shaders as Bill does. I have attention span sufficient for a 3-node wooden texture! Would gladly pay money for a set of them for Max or Carara, or Vue.

In the world of higher end apps, it is often said that there is no way to come up with TRULY realistic tectures unless photos and image maps are used.
I only partially agree with that philosopy. I do see the image maps being a lot more economical for certain things when it comes to computing power and when it comes to nabbing the right set of formulas to simulate something realistic. This takes a LOOOT more time then taking a photo or paint a texture and map it. Plus, it takes someone with solid math skills, and someone solid in math AND art is a much rarer find then someone skilled in just one or the other.

More practical way... yes, in some, or even a lot of  cases I can see image mapping being more practical. 
When it comes to 'The only way to achieve reality' statement, from technical and scientific point of view, I don't buy.  I'd love to see someone show it off.

ah hah!!!! just looked at your loom script....basically, a "node" in lw is a text file like that saved as a .nod file......very cool...thanks for the link.  I think that could easily be tweaked into a .nod file.

Bagginsbill... check this out :)   just FYI:
http://www.3dtotal.com/ffa/tutorials/max/joanofarc_p2/texture_skin_procedural1.asp

I gave a bad link - here's a correction

Downloading weave patterns

BTW Here's where you can find the shader nodes in Lightwave 9.2

Side note:  Lightwave now has a 30 day trial version 

I'll second the Vue Infinite shader creation! And the converter scheme. Of course that would probably infuriate texture artists, as it would be using math tricks to replace =real= textures...but considering the memory savings shaders have over hi res texturing, it would open the door to more complex scenes. Oh, And :p

I don't believe texture maps will be replaced.  I do believe that they will evolve into gradient overlays though.  Hmm,  now if we could do something about the rigging...

Heeeee, this thread is turning into a technical discussion! I love that.

Texture maps based on photos have their problems. 
In a render, you want to be able to control diffuse and specular components of the material, and also translucency, subsurface scattering, bump/displacement etc. etc. The trouble is that some of these components are independent of the direction of the lights (diffuse, displacement), and some of them are highly dependent on the direction of the lights (specular, SSS), some of them are also dependent on other objects in the scene (reflection/refraction). ANd a texture map based on a photo incorporates all those components in a single image.
Which means that a photo base texture that has not been manipulated is only truly realistic when the lighting conditions and other objects in the 3D scene match the lighting conditions and other objects of the setting where the photo was taken.
To separate the different components of the material, so that the texture map can be used in other (3D) settings, the photo must be edited, which is an art and craft all by itself. 

A Poser-based example: many hair textures have baked-in highligts. Which makes creating realistic renders virtually impossible - the highlights almost never match the lighting in the scene. Reflection maps on corneas and eyes have the same problem. 

And then there's memory. Texture maps take up lots of memory, procedural shaders use far, far less. 
For human skin it should be possible to take a fairly low resolution grayscale texture map, and use that map to drive several procedural shaders for diffuse, specular, bump/displacement, SSS etcetera. While not perfectly realistic, it could be a very good approximation that doesn't consume tons of memory.

Damn real life. I just can't find the time to experiment and build such a shader!

is that Pop pop Poppi? land sakes, it's been quite some time since I seed dat name...;)

The nice thing about modelers in general, is doing things you don't find somewhere else. Texturers (not that I've used the dozens I've actually downloaded..;) are handy too.

I just treat all this as a toolbox. Some programs do things better than other, so they get tossed in the mix.

It does tickle me that no one has 'left this alone'...as we're on page 5 of this...;)

Maybe if we just keep nudging about improvements in rigging, and some kind of legacy rig to prevent voiding all existing content, who knows..... Seriously, how difficult would it be to implement a rigging modification that allowed for the kinds of actual joint action in nature? Even if some kind of hard coding was needed, just having the knees and elbows able to translate over the femur/humerus end would solve so many of the joint issues that exist. Some form of softbody dynamics would be well worth it as well, even if it were limited to joints and major mass like breasts and buttocks and shoulders in men. And traditional P4 texture maps do need replacing, or at least seriously diminshing, with shader tech. the 4000x4000 body texture alone is a hog. Never mind the face, separate eyes, in some cases genital maps. As long as we don't have 64 bit addressing throughout the entire program, we still have to live in that 2 gig memory space. And most of the tricks the pros use to deal with RAM limits are either simply ignored, or treated as if they only apply to the big apps. It's the same with lighting. How many times have you seen someone fiddlefart around with numerous infinite floods, trying to simulate sunlight through a window, instead of using a gel of slats and a single broad focus spot? I mean lightboxes are still used in actual movies as a cost saving technique, and none the wiser....

Hey operaguy

Next time you go over to 3d buzz,  see how many of the modelers there use FaceGen instead of building a head poly by poly.  It'll shut 'em up. 

Hi Dale B  

Jane 1's rigging is going to have 60 bones give or take, for the body.

Quote - Which means that a photo base texture that has not been manipulated is only truly realistic when the lighting conditions and other objects in the 3D scene match the lighting conditions and other objects of the setting where the photo was taken.
To separate the different components of the material, so that the texture map can be used in other (3D) settings, the photo must be edited, which is an art and craft all by itself. 

Yeah, tell me about it! 
It's no joke working the images into decent texture maps! Luckily for the moment I prefer to paint to crunching numbers (which I get to do for work). Still, those whom visit the few images in my gallery are likely to notice that almost all of my textures there are procedural.

Back to image maps, I thend to create my own, either trapsing around neigborhood taking photos, or scanning in found objects. I tend to try and pick spots with very flat even lighting, so the texture can be lit in the scene.

Then there's UV mapping.... eh! Another can of worms ;)

Quote - Hi Dale B  

Jane 1's rigging is going to have 60 bones give or take, for the body.

Hmmmmmm....... Sounds like it will be interesting to see where the bones are and what they do..... :)

as an aside, an human foot has dozens of bones. I'll be interested in seeing the final jane 1, anyway. keep us posted on yer progress, pat. did somebody mention human skin textures? ISTR quinlor had a tutorial on the little-used poser "skin" node.

16 are nulls ( goal objects )

HI Miss Nancy

Do you have a link to ISTR quinlor's tutorial?

I'm a longtime Max user & find it far too time consuming. Max is great for modeling but not so much on artwork. Animation's are awesome but difficult to master on it. I prefer Poser for animation, you can make the figures talk, in Max you really can't without jumping through hoops and spending hours on end trying to get it to work.

patorak, I will be visiting over there again and will make use of what you suggested, if any contention arises. I am not really out to start a big hullabaloo, which is evident in my fairly gentlmanly way of confronting them. Did you notice that no one responded to my charge that many modlers don't bother to rig their mesh....just pull it into shape and begin painting then go straight to lighting and render?

Who is Jane and should I prepare to fall in love with her?

::::: Opera :::::

Max native hair dynamics (not extra-cost plugin)  vs poser hair room and simulation
3dmax comes with  Joe Alters 'Shave & Haircut' so for all things hairy your well catered for

http://www.vfxworld.com/?atype=articles&format=rss&id=2500

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/images/3dsmax04.jpg
(btw,when you buy max you'll get a bunch of turbosquid vouchers,so you'll no doubt end up getting a couple plugins anyway)

Max native animation tools (no Motion Builder) vs Poser's animation features

Poser is very basic in comparison to the animation toolset 3dmax offers,for some people that basic toolset is fine but if your serious about animation then you cant go wrong with 3dmax,character studio,crowd systems..biped..total rigging control..it's an awesome(& very big) app.I've used it for several years & there's still parts I havent yet touched on

XSI might be worth a look too,I know a few 3dMax users have switched to xsi for the animation options

Dajadues..have you tried Voice-O-Matic?

Thanks Stonemason. That is exactly what I was looking for.

lol @ Pakled:  is that Pop pop Poppi? land sakes, it's been quite some time since I seed dat name...;)

Yes, it's me.  I still lurk, but don't Pop around too much.  I actually spend more time modelling and all the rest than I do chatting, anymore.  Lightwave killed me for forum life, I guess.

Attached Link: http://www.quinlor.de/tutorials/tattoo.html

Quote - Speaking of playing with Barbies.  My late great great great grandmother had quite a collection.  Not only did she have a collection, my great grandfather built her the mother of all barbie houses - which she spent the last 20 or so years of her life arranging decorations in.   To myself and a museum here in Illinois that really constituted a great piece of artwork. 

Would this be the Colleen Moore Faire Castle at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry? That, and the U-505 are my favorite exhibits there.