It’s too bad more programmers at E-frontier aren’t artists. One might imagine the decision making process that resulted in Texture filtering left on by default. Doing so allows for larger scenes than ever befored. It reduces the memory required for textures to a tiny fraction. From a programming standpoint, it’s a beautiful thing. But what is it from an artistic standpoint? In my opinion, it’s no surprise that texture filtering saves memory. How could it not? It loosely approximates the textures. It obliterates the detail. Is this a big deal? Not if you’re a programmer, apparently, but if you’re an artist, it’s a bloody disaster. Such was the faith of the E-frontier programmers in their splendid solution in memory conservation that they didn’t think to include a way for the user to switch off texture filtering for an entire figure or prop except by doing so for each separate material. Obviously they thought it would be a rare individual indeed who would actually want to see his or her 4000 by 4000 textures with more detail than a economical blur. My suggestion to e-frontier:- If you haven’t done so already, hire artists and consult them concerning the usability of any future “improvements.” I love your product, but a whacked sense of priorities in design occasionally surfaces.

Actually, one of EF's developer's responded to this question a few weeks ago already. Having it on has a minimum image impact, and adds a huge boost to memory management issues,and decreases rendering time dramatically.

And you can always render a larger format image and downsize it for final consumption if ya want, or crank up render settings.

.....or just beat a dead horse that's already been buried.

You have completely misunderstood something.

EF made the following changes with regard to texture filtering:

1. Moved the setting of texture filtering to the Image_Map node for more control, instead of a single render option.
2. Added more than on-off, there are 3 states now, again for more control.
3. Changed the default to on - for reasons that probably have to do with "artists" who don't understand the mathematical reason why they get moire patterns in renders, and keep complaining that the textures look like crap.

EF also made the following change to texture CACHING:

1. Poser does not need to hold an entire texture in memory any more. It can load bits and pieces as needed, reducing memory footprint, while only slightly impacting speed.

And here is my point:

The 3 changes to texture filtering HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with texture caching. Yet you have conflated the two ideas and claimed the programmers should know more about what the artists want.

Sounds to me like the artists should learn a little more about how programming works. :)

Anyway, I agree with you that 90% of the time I want texture filtering off, not on, because we're mostly dealing with trying to reveal details. The Poser filtering should actually not be turned off, but rather it should be adjusted so it kicks in at a greater distance than it does right now. It is perfectly correct to blur the texture, but Poser blurs it too close to the camera. That is the actual parameter we need the most. The blur distance needs to be adjustable for different textures, since the texture density pattern density is not apparent to the software, but is apparent and relevent to the artist. So the software should let you control that.

Having [texture filtering] on has a minimum image impact Are you a programmer? To my eyes, the texture filtering has a major, negative impact on quality of detail that is impossible to miss. Thank god for Python. Sounds to me like the artists should learn a little more about how programming works. Maybe so, but life is short. We can't all be multifaceted geniuses. I think we agree that the texture filtering, as it stands, is more than a little heavy-handed. An adjustable blur distance would have been great. Maybe something like that will be included for the Poser Pros and committed hobbyists.

The problem with the texture filtering in P7is that it seems to switch down to smaller MIP maps quicker inconveniently quickly.
This has an unfortunate affect on texutres that really do need to maintain fine detail e.g. hair transmaps.

The problem is that so many people are latching on to the "texture filtering is on, what were they thinking" that they miss that their Min shading rate (in render settings) is set too high (defaults to 1.0).

set your min shade rate to 0.2 - 0.5 and the "texture filtering problem" goes away.

In other words, Tygerpurr, when you use the application properly, then EF's decisions make an amazing amount of sense, that there's nothing to complain about?

Hehee....

Damned EF for actually knowing what they are doing!

The only real thing i see to complain about is that they set the min. Shading rate so blasted high (by default) that it produces an effect similar to what you got when you used texture filtering in P6. From previous experience many assume that it must be the texture filtering because it is on in all the textures.

There is IMO a legitimate complaint there, it's just easier to solve than changing the texture filtering in each and every material zone in your scene (or using the python script that does it automatically).

Quote - There is IMO a legitimate complaint there, it's just easier to solve than changing the texture filtering in each and every material zone in your scene (or using the python script that does it automatically).

I think there's a script that will set the shading rate on all actors somewhere.

Quote - > Quote - There is IMO a legitimate complaint there, it's just easier to solve than changing the texture filtering in each and every material zone in your scene (or using the python script that does it automatically).

I think there's a script that will set the shading rate on all actors somewhere.

I wouldn't doubt that, however your default shade rate at the actor level is 0.2. this should be fine for most things. It is the Min shading rate in the render settings that needs to be lowered.

Rendering uses whichever value is higher, so setting your render settings lower than 0.2 won't improve anything if you haven't changed the actor's setting.

8/10/07

Tyger_purr:

*"I wouldn't doubt that, however your default shade rate at the actor level is 0.2. this should be fine for most things. It is the Min shading rate in the render settings that needs to be lowered.

Rendering uses whichever value is higher, so setting your render settings lower than 0.2 won't improve anything if you haven't changed the actor's setting."*
 
I'm sorry to admit this, TP, but I do not have the slightest idea what the "actor level" or the "actor's setting" is. I cannot adjust it if I don't know what and where it is.

Thanks,

LMK

Quote - 8/10/07

Tyger_purr:

*"I wouldn't doubt that, however your default shade rate at the actor level is 0.2. this should be fine for most things. It is the Min shading rate in the render settings that needs to be lowered.

Rendering uses whichever value is higher, so setting your render settings lower than 0.2 won't improve anything if you haven't changed the actor's setting."*
 
I'm sorry to admit this, TP, but I do not have the slightest ide what the "actor level" or the "actor's setting" is. I cannot adjust it if I don't know what and where it is.

Thanks,

LMK

What I am refering to is as the setting at the "actor level" is when you select a part of a figure (an actor) other than "body", such as "Right Forearm" or when you select a prop and look at your properties tab (with your parameters dials), between the displacement bounds dial and the smooth polygons checkbox there is a Shading rate.

I guess it would be more accurate to say the actor's properties.

Quote - The problem with the texture filtering in P7is that it seems to switch down to smaller MIP maps quicker inconveniently quickly.
This has an unfortunate affect on texutres that really do need to maintain fine detail e.g. hair transmaps.

True. No increase in a renders resolution through the renderer settings is going to produce a sharper image if the information in the texture directly on the object has had it's textures dumed down. You can't resolve data that isn't there.

The shading rate is always listed as minimum.  So if the render shading rate is higher than the figure/object shading rate it will override that value.  If that value is lower then there will be no noticeable change, as the higher value always prevails.

Attached Link: http://graphics.pixar.com/TOD/paper.pdf

Correct. Many transmapped hair styles show strong aliasing artifacts when rendered with unfiltered textures. If you want all the nerdy details, Poser 7' is using an EWA filter in quality mode, trilinear in fast mode and nearest neighbor sampling when set to none. (details about which is which can be found in http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ph/texsurv.pdf ). Poser 5 and 6 used summed area tables, which use more memory than mip maps and are not well suited for texture caching. > Quote - The 3 changes to texture filtering HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with texture caching.

To a certain extend, they actually do. The texture cache performs better with coherent texture access, and filtered mip-maps lookups are more coherent that texture lookups without antialiasing. If you want the full details, see the Pixar technical note "Texture On Demand" (linked above).

No increase in a renders resolution through the renderer settings is going to produce a sharper image if the information in the texture directly on the object has had it's textures dummed down. You can't resolve data that isn't there. This is the key point. You can reduce the render shading rate to .001, but if texture filtering is left on default ‘Quality’ there will still be noticeable blur. Is a user advised to turn down the shading rate for each and every body part? There are generally less material zones than body parts and it's easier to just turn off texture filtering if you'd actually like to see your textures. The thing that gets to me is that e-frontier has set things up so that you must struggle against a myriad of poorly chosen default settings. I wonder about this.

First ya bitched about one thing, and now yer bitching about another.. I think ya just wanna hear yerself complain...

Gareee, it's all the same issue. Oh, and by the way, it's a valid issue. It boils down to this. Texture filtering, regardless of the shading rate, blurs a texture at close range more than I (or anyone with clear eyesight IMHO) should find acceptable. I have never said that it's impossible to get a good render in Poser. Some people see the world in terms of bitches and sycophants, but reality is generally more nuanced, like an unfiltered texture map.

Well, people have told you how to use poser's rendering settings easily to do what you want, and also have explained that EF is actually doing things properly now, where they were not before, and why they have also done thins, to dramatically decrease renders times, and also manage memory far more efficently then before.

Of course you completely missed all these explanations (Many by some of the top poser tech people around), and you simply ignore them and ramble on.

Essentially you are just saying that EF needs a couple more artists who do understand these technical issues to step in at the end of development and oversee the selection of the default settings.  That seems reasonable to me, as I have a similar issue with bump maps.  Those were changed to reflect, I assume, some kind of real world measurement.  To me it seems as the useful range for the bump node is now somewhere between .01 and .001.  Any lower and I see little effect, any higher and I tent to get artifacts.  Not a large working range given the range it actually accepts.

Well, people have told you how to use poser's rendering settings easily to do what you want, and also have explained that EF is actually doing things properly now, where they were not before, and why they have also done thins, to dramatically decrease renders times, and also manage memory far more efficently then before. I have a different recollection. I recall testing what was supposed to "work" and finding it wanting. There are solutions, but they are not the official ones. If you value detail, you will need to turn off texture filtering, not for everything of course, but for the subject of your render if it is anywhere near the camera. The fact that you don't realize this suggests that you don't strive for detail. EF could have done things better. The latest version of Daz Studio produces awesome, detailed renders as a default.

ok pointing out that is your opinion.

if others opinions differ from yours thats your problem. telling them 'If you value detail, you will need to turn off texture filtering, not for everything of course, but for the subject of your render if it is anywhere near the camera. The fact that you don't realize this suggests that you don't strive for detail.' is uncalled for. not everyone sees eye to eye.

if you don't like what your told on how to fix it, and you think other software does better, use that software. don't rubbish others because they don't share your opinion of the matter.

not that this post will matter.... sigh

Khai, an objective truth such as that which constitutes "clear" and "detail" is not a matter of pure opinion. Nor is it out of line to inform someone who has taken you to task for "bitching" and "blowing by" all the fabulous solutions touted by EF techs and associates that a better solution exists. EF is on the verge of creating a new version of Poser and it would be a shame if the praise of loyal fans and interested parties drowned out any mentions of the areas where the program (or at least its configuration) might be improved. One area where there is room for improvement is Texture Filtering.

then the case is simple.

use the better solution.

if you think there's room for improvement btw.. why are you posting here and not talking to E-Frontier? surely they would be the better ones to talk to........ just my opinion.

From the responses, it's obvious that e-frontier reads here. The E-Frontier forums are too much of a ghost town, in my opinion, and I feel lonely and depressed when I loiter there too long.

I was actually suggesting Emailing them - more reliable than posts in a forum that they may or may not read - specially when it's not their own forums. - but thats just stupid old me.

I was actually suggesting Emailing them - more reliable than posts in a forum that they may or may not read - specially when it's not their own forums That's a relief. For a second I thought you were suggesting that I shut my mouth about Poser's shortcomings and the workarounds while in public. Seriously, maybe I will e-mail, though I feel weary when contemplating the writing of a clear, concise, detailed description of what I perceive as the actual problem when the problem obviously exists, but my understanding of exactly why is based on suppositions.

*That's a relief. For a second I thought you were suggesting that I shut my mouth about Poser's shortcomings and the workarounds while in public.

I was actually.

by doing the logical and common sense thing of talking to EF by Email and opening a constructive and useful dialogue about your concerns and thereby increasing the likely hood of improving the software, since then they would have seen it for sure rather than miss it on a forum that it is unsure the programmers even visit on a regular basis.*

but again.. thats just stupid old me..

thats just stupid old me There's no need for self-flagellation simply because the rules of the board prevent you from calling anyone else stupid. Believe me Khai, I know what you were saying and what you would prefer to say. Just for the sake of the argument, suppose I e-mailed e-frontier and continued to make honest posts in this forum. Would you really be any less annoyed?

My recommendation is to do a few renders and sort of prove your point. I happen to agree that the texture filtering on kinda stinks but I haven't been able to use Poser 7 on machine (it doesn't work well) so the point is mute.

Try a few renders to show that texture filtering on and render settings looks worse than the same render settings etc. It might even take more time. Time the renders, compare, post so we can see the issue etc.

Quote - thats just stupid old me There's no need for self-flagellation simply because the rules of the board prevent you from calling anyone else stupid. Believe me Khai, I know what you were saying and what you would prefer to say. Just for the sake of the argument, suppose I e-mailed e-frontier and continued to make honest posts in this forum. Would you really be any less annoyed?

I don't know what you think I'm saying here.. I said exactly what I wanted to say and with the exact words I meant to use. if you read anything else into my posts other than the words I use with their meanings as given, then you, and only you, are putting those meanings there.

I'm not annoyed and not been at all.
. I just think talking to EF would be more productive than posting here. an example would be talking to Nissan to get a design fault in a Ford car fixed... you'd talk to Ford correct?

I don't know what you think I'm saying here. I thought you were saying essentially, "Shutup about Poser 7's shortcomings in this public forum. If you weren't so studid you'd e-mail e-frontier about your problems." I just think talking to EF would be more productive than posting here. an example would be talking to Nissan to get a design fault in a Ford car fixed... you'd talk to Ford correct? A better analogy would be my posting of speculations concerning the reasons for a Ford design flaw that I was able to solve myself in a forum devoted to the discussion of Ford automobiles.

Quote - *That's a relief. For a second I thought you were suggesting that I shut my mouth about Poser's shortcomings and the workarounds while in public.

I was actually.

by doing the logical and common sense thing of talking to EF by Email and opening a constructive and useful dialogue about your concerns and thereby increasing the likely hood of improving the software, since then they would have seen it for sure rather than miss it on a forum that it is unsure the programmers even visit on a regular basis.*

but again.. thats just stupid old me..

Uh, I should point out that he got an accurate and effective answer pretty quickly - thus, his approach has been demonstrated to be logical and sensible.  Not only are you beating the proverbial dead horse, since it's now a moot point as EF actually responded here (hi Stewer) and he's gotten some useful answers - you're also wrong, since Paloth's approach was obviously effective.  :rolleyes:

How bout a cat picture?

how about no?

WRONG ANSWER!

www.lolcats.com

very good. carry on... I won't be coming back to this thread now it's degenerated into stupidity.