@ SamTherapy,

Quote - Yup, I got the point. Being a lateral thinker though, I said to myself, "Why in the world would anyone want to do this when there are better and easier solutions?"

I assume you are talking about attaching the image to a square, or compositing in a paint program. IMHO neither of these methods is better or easier than placing the image in the background.

Lets look at the square method first. When the image is in the Background, you can move the camera any way you like and the image stays the same in the Background. If you use a square you will have to parent it to the camera to get the same effect. A square with the default material settings will be affected by the lighting in the scene, and will catch shadows from the scene. These are usually not things you want to happen, so you need to plug the image into the Ambient channel, set that to white, and set the Defuse and Specular to black. I don't see anything "easier" here!

I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to get the same resolution from an image attached to a square as one attached to the background. So I don't see anything "better" here either!

So what about adding the background in a paint program? It's not a bad method, it works quite well, but because the Poser image  of a figure was rendered over a background colour (mid grey for example) the edges are unlikely, in my opinion, to ever blend in quite as well as if it were rendered over a background image, where the anti-aliasing would merge the edges of a figure with the background. In any case I don't see this as being in any way easier than adding a background image in Poser.

These are just my thoughts on this issue, I am no great expert on image processing or paint programs, I will stand to be corrected on this. But on the face of it I don't see that the other methods are better or easier than using the Poser Background.