As I've been checking various items of a new product for Daz compatibility,
it's become clear that Daz renders "hard items" much better. 

The picture tells the story.  Though the camera angle isn't quite the same, you can
see that the default Daz render is sharp and correct, while Firefly is fuzzy
with inaccurate shapes.  (Actually the Daz picture is more like the REAL Poser 4
renderer, which I've missed ever since the advent of Firefly.)

so you are comparing it based on their default settings ?

Have you tried the "P4" renderer in Poser ?

Daz does some things differently than Poser for sure. I found mechanicals looked better. 

Firefly looks better to me but that could be settings etc. The fuzziness might be texture filtering.

Believe me, I've been fiddling with texture filtering, shading rate, etc, for years,
and this is the best I've been able to get in Firefly.   The new ersatz P4 renderer
is a little better, but default Daz brings back the clarity of the real P4.

Your Firefly render looks to my eyes to be displaying issues related to using too high a shading rate(try 0.2 - 0.5) and perhaps use of texture filtering on the image-map nodes (set to "none"). Displacement set by mistake on materials can cause undesirable bulging or mis-shaping of the model at rendertime, as can polygon smoothing on some models.
I have no idea about D/S default render settings, but Firefly usually needs tweaking.

Can you post your render settings or Firefly?

How can you even say that. Even though your lighting is too extreme, I see shadows in firefly I don't even see in Daz Studio.

The Texture filtering is set to Quality for the render I showed, but it's even worse
with the filtering Off.  (The lettering looks 'scrappy')

pixel samples 2? default is 3. you made it lower? 

and your renders dont have the same lights for christ sake and the same materials.

Raising the pixel samples to 5 or higher should help, although I'm surprised about the texture filtering off result (it's usually sharper for me). The polygon smoothing may be causing problems depending on how the model has been made (I don't have too much experience here but I know it can be an issue).

Change your Post filter Type to sync and the renders become sharp.

just reset the render settings and render again. it should be better.

Lower number of pixel samples = inferior antialiasing (your problem).

Also try unchecking smooth polygons. I have seen this with several models that where imported into Poser straight from 3dmax as obj files.

I would like to see a real apples to apples comparison of the two render engines and see factually their strengths and weaknesses.

When I first started out with Studio and them moved to Poser, I was disappointed with the results I got with Poser.  The default lighting and render settings are much better in Studio.  

Once I learned more about lighting my Poser renders got better, but I still wish the defaults were better for quickie renders.

Quote - When I first started out with Studio and them moved to Poser, I was disappointed with the results I got with Poser.  The default lighting and render settings are much better in Studio.  

Once I learned more about lighting my Poser renders got better, but I still wish the defaults were better for quickie renders.

You can set up your own preferred state that Poser will load upon starting the app. Or you can just save lightsets and render presets if you want to do it that way.

Quote - it's become clear that Daz renders "hard items" much better. 

Hold on there!

You're not even rendering at the default settings in Poser, but even if you were, how does comparing the renderers at default settings mean anything at all?

Second, you're not actually talking about "hard items" - you're talking about how your color maps look, which is directly impacted by the values you've got set and should not be using.

Texture filtering is a complicated subject, and is necessary for images that produce moire patterns. Otherwise, turn it off. Poser makes a mistake enabling that by default and it drives me batty explaining this every month for the past 2 years.

Have a look here at some "hard items" rendered in Firefly:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?image_id=1840092

I had to use post processing to create some subtle blur and dispersion, because Firefly made the details so sharp they were not recognizable as a photo, which is what I was going for.

Look at the "EN951" near the tail. That was impossibly sharp edged black on white. I had to use a filter to make it look the way cameras produce black on white.

Look at the radio antenna, how smooth and anti-aliased it appears. You can't set pixel samples at 2 and then complain that Firefly doesn't anti-alias hard things well.

As for mis-shape - well if that product was designed to be used in Poser then it should have been tested with smoothing turned on. There is no reason for shapes to become bloated. There is a good reason to use smoothing. Compare the stove exhaust pipe on the two renders. The Daz version is not smoothly curved, while the Poser version is. If you were going to pick which one does hard things more realistically, I'd say that smoothing blows the doors off not smoothing. Now maybe you can enable that in Daz, in which case that's another example of operator error.

I think both renderers can produce detail and sharpness that is perfectly adequate. I know Poser can produce realistic shapes from low-polygon props if the model author knows what he's doing and is designing for Poser. Otherwise, if the modeler does not know what he's doing or is not aware that he is designing for Poser (as is common with freebies and props made for sub-D capable renderers) then you get bloat.

If BagginsBill is correct about the smoothing, then that would be disappointing because you'd need to create a D|S version and a Poser version with tighter bevels to "cheat" the smoothing.

Otherwise I agree with Jules 53757 - changing the Post Filter Type to Sinc and pixel size to 4 whic greatly sharpen the Poser image, though I've observed artifacting. In D|S, the Catmull-Rom filter will give you a nice look, somewhere between a Gaussian (too blurry for my tastes) and a Sinc.

BB that's a terrific render, but it's still too sharp.  I know you put some effort into reducing that, it could still stand to have a little blur on the far planes.  Super snappy image though just the same.

Quote - If BagginsBill is correct about the smoothing, then that would be disappointing because you'd need to create a D|S version and a Poser version with tighter bevels to "cheat" the smoothing.

For as many situations as I can think of, if a model is designed for Poser's Reyes polygon smoothing and is "watertight" (i.e., the edges are NOT broken) then it will appear much the same with Catmull-Clark subdivision.  For models that HAVE had their edges broken (which is many, because it allows many fewer polygons in the final model, e.g. much of Stonemason's work) these will go nuts when Catmull-Clark subdivided.

When you say "broken edges" are you speaking of vertices with no edges connected?

I mean adjacent polygons that are made up of different but co-located vertices, if that's more clear.

Easy fix - merge vertices. Do you think the stove above has adjacent edges / vertices? If it's "cleaned up" do you think the Poser version will look like the D|S version? 

 You can switch off smoothing easily for each prop. If you want smoothing on a part of it and no smoothing on another, either model right or break the model in parts and use different smoothing on either part.  

Well the point was, it's possible to model in ways that are suitable for both Reyes polygon smoothing and Catmull-Clark Subdivision and be able to take advantage of both techniques with the same model (I thought there was a question to that effect, could be mistaken).  Simply merging adjacent vertices on models that were intentionally designed with broken edges (e.g. Stonemason's stuff) will make them unsuitable for Reyes smoothing; and breaking the model into parts (which is what Stonemason e.g. does) can make it work with Reyes but won't work well with Catmull-Clark Subdivision.  While it is possible to model for both, a lot of popular content simply is not going to work well with both methods.

At any rate this is kind of a side issue to what Ockham's problem is, the "blowing out" effect that can happen with some models in Reyes rendering doesn't seem to be what's going on here, really just looks like antialiasing quality is poor.

very interesting

split vertices was a standard thing that people were told to do to get sharp edges in poser. Its become less needed in Poser with smotthing angles , and the smoothing checkbox. 

Yes, Daz Studio has smoothing. It smoothes by material, which gives more control than by object or body part.

mac

"Smoothing by material" is phong shading, which Poser can also do (pretty much any 3D tool or game can).  This won't affect the sharp corners that are visible in the profile of a model, but D|S does included Catmull-Clark subdivision, which must be applied to the entire model.  Poser (Reyes polygon smoothing) is actually more controlled in this aspect, since polygon smoothing can be turned on or off by bodypart.  For D|S it's the whole model, and a lot of models that are designed for Poser's polygon smoothing won't work with it (which is what we've been discussing).

Just my two cents, but I'd say that your Irradiance caching is to small also. And using sync rather than box is the way to go, as has already been suggested.

Very simple materials - no bump or displacement. Just regular diffuse and specular for this test (which was mostly about lighting). The lights were fairly straitforward as well, 1 point & 1 spot  (I used falloff on these), & 1 IBL with probelight image (light based AO).

Next one uses pretty much the same lights, same simple materials but with some displacement, and this time I added some DOF for added depth.
Same render settings except i increased pixel samples to 15 to handle the DOF.
Took a fair bit longer to render but still not hours (had a quick cuppa and it was done when I got back)

I thought these renders were pretty sharp anyway...for a bottom end app.

I think it might help Poser if there were a few more render presets for people to choose from as standard, as a quick start perhaps

Quote - (which is what Stonemason e.g. does) .

 
keep in mind many of my early models were made at a time when the only render engine Poser had was the p4 engine..smoothing,firefly,displacement etc weren't available so splitting verts was the best option and at the time caused no problems at all.
I now use smooth groups from 3dsmax & in D|S I use smoothing by material to get hard edges,If I have a model that needs to be subdivided I'll do that sub-d in max,I also try to disable smoothing in each prop/figure so what the user does in render settings makes no changes to the model.

Quote - Just my two cents, but I'd say that your Irradiance caching is to small also. And using sync rather than box is the way to go, as has already been suggested.

isnt irradiance caching for AO?

To me the big problem is the post filter being set to "box". I never ever use "box". I always use "sync" since it is MUCH sharper. I also find that smooth objects really works only on organic forms such as huminoid figures but not whell on inorganic forms. Finally I think Poser does better with some form of fill light, low IBL or textures and a dark color in the ambient.

That said, thanks for the comparison. I have been interested in d/s but find the content installation and lighting controls confusing... I LOVE the PowerPoser and I wish so much Poser had a tool like that. I have also always prefered the UI sliders to those horrible Poser dials.

Quote - To me the big problem is the post filter being set to "box". I never ever use "box". I always use "sync" since it is MUCH sharper.

you want even more sharper?

we already have to sharp renders. he he

ockham:

As a user of DS and Poser, I agree with you that DS seems better suited at "default" settings for quick renders regarding hard/soft issues with models.  I have the same problems in my model testing.  But I am only a hobbyist renderer without the latest versions, or a decent PC, and have not yet ventured into the advanced levels cited in this thread.

Having said that and after reading thread, several experts here have proven Poser is quite capable of rendering models correctly if created correctly by author.

pjz99, bagginsbill, stonemason:  (or anyone with help)

I am trying to break onto author/vendor scene.  Gave away a few freebies using same technique as stonemason with hard/soft groups - splitting verts.  For simple non-morphing props this seemed fine, but the project I am on now requires morph targets externally created which require 'watertight' model.  I am having same problem as ockham, and I will go back and retest in Poser 6 with all I learned here so far.  I am creating specifically for Poser and DS, but I don't have access to versions you might use, and would appreciate any help you guys might offer.  Models are non-organic with discernible hard edges.  I did not close proximity bevel or chamfer, because poly counts are high enough already, but if I have to remodel I will.

Thank you in advance,
Take care all...
Ken

"I have been interested in d/s but find the content installation and lighting controls confusing"

I have a tutorial which might help with lighting (and cameras).

http://digilander.libero.it/maclean/DStutorial.htm

mac

Cool, thank you maclean. I had been searching for such a tutorial and this looks excellent. I am looking forward to d/s3 and downloaded the trial. Any indication of likely price for the fully loaded d/s3? I prefer the less intrusive GUI and certainly the posing tools but I don't know at all about dealing with a user learning curve or whatever you call it. I don't have much brain power to devote to learning anything new these days...

Stonemason: 

Quote - > Quote - (which is what Stonemason e.g. does) .

 
keep in mind many of my early models were made at a time when the only render engine Poser had was the p4 engine..smoothing,firefly,displacement etc weren't available so splitting verts was the best option and at the time caused no problems at all.
I now use smooth groups from 3dsmax & in D|S I use smoothing by material to get hard edges,If I have a model that needs to be subdivided I'll do that sub-d in max,I also try to disable smoothing in each prop/figure so what the user does in render settings makes no changes to the model.

I think you understood what I was getting at but just to be sure: that wasn't any kind of complaint about your modeling work, which is excellent, just an observation about how it behaves (at least the older stuff).  Keep up the good work :)

Quote - I am trying to break onto author/vendor scene.  Gave away a few freebies using same technique as stonemason with hard/soft groups - splitting verts.  For simple non-morphing props this seemed fine, but the project I am on now requires morph targets externally created which require 'watertight' model.  I am having same problem as ockham, and I will go back and retest in Poser 6 with all I learned here so far.  I am creating specifically for Poser and DS, but I don't have access to versions you might use, and would appreciate any help you guys might offer.  Models are non-organic with discernible hard edges.  I did not close proximity bevel or chamfer, because poly counts are high enough already, but if I have to remodel I will.

If you need morph targets and the model has to be watertight, then imo you need to either do things similarly to how Stonemason just described his more recent work and disable polygon smoothing for the entire model, or live with higher poly count and try to come up with topology that works with Reyes polygon smoothing (basically add more edges where bulging occurs).

When I turned on polygon smoothing, things went a little haywire. I had to go around turning off smoothing or adjusting crease angles for various parts. But I wasn't able to fully take advantage of the smoothing because too much of it had unwanted bulges. A few extra polygons would take care of that, but since they're not there, I couldn't get all of it to show off nicely.

However, the handle ... now that's a work of art, ockham.

Here is the handle rendered without smoothing. It's a little hard to see, but if you look at the curve on the left-most part, you can see it is made of just 5 polygons. You might have to zoom this image to see it clearly.

in answer to ice's query, increasing IC increases FFRender's calculations per screen pixel for IBL/AO, IL/radiosity, gather.

pjz99:

Thanks for info.  I already modeled both ways, but I was hoping to not go back in with added bevels on high poly version.  On low poly version I might give it a go.  I am not a newbie, but I have different modeling skills than stonemason and I don't use 3dsMax.  I model via hard/soft edge topology, and have to admit that after 10 years I am stumped regarding "disable polygon smoothing for the entire model".  Is this something specifically done inside Max, or do I need to hack my OBJ file parameters, or are you referring to turn off smoothing via Poser in model attributes?  I created topology based on what I want to accomplish with models.  I would have created exactly same topology even if I used Max.

I tried playing with smoothing and crease options in Poser 6, but my model just seems to go two ways:  all soft or all hard without regard to planned smooth groups.  DAZ Studio uses 3Delight Renderer, and now I know Poser uses Reyes.  Is that FireFly?  Poser 6 uses Reyes also?  Is it a sub-version of BMRT?  I will have to research Reyes further.

Also, what versions of Poser (or DS if applicable) do you guys use (especially ockham, pjz99, bagginsbill, stonemason, carodan, and maclean)?

Would it be o.k. to add link to a small forum where I uploaded WIPs on this project including some DS test renders?  Or should I just upload some test renders here?

Take care all...
Ken

Quote - I model via hard/soft edge topology, and have to admit that after 10 years I am stumped regarding "disable polygon smoothing for the entire model".  Is this something specifically done inside Max, or do I need to hack my OBJ file parameters, or are you referring to turn off smoothing via Poser in model attributes? 

Since you just answered your own question (the last option) I'd say you are not stumped at all.  Something that is a bit confusing is that Poser's interface and documentation use "smoothing" interchangeably with Phong shading and Reyes polygon smoothing, which is bad because they don't really have much to do with each other.  An area of overlap in the most recent versions of Poser (7 and Pro for sure, maybe 6 as well) is that the setting "Crease Angle" in object properties applies to both Phong shading AND Reyes polygon smoothing, but that's the only shared setting I can think of.  The Poser setting I was talking about is on the Parameter Dials window -> Properties tab, "Smooth Polygons".  If your model is a figure (multiple bodyparts) this setting is separate for each and every bodypart.  It's not really your fault that this distinction doesn't seem obvious, it's because Poser's interface and docs confuse the two aspects of rendering (it confused me for a while too).

Firefly is a Reyes renderer, as is 3Delight (DAZ|Studio's renderer).  D|S does not make use of Reyes polygon smoothing though, and up until recently there wasn't any option in D|S to round off low-poly models; recently they added Catmull-Clark subdivision as a feature that can be applied to an existing model.  Since you're an experienced modeler I'm sure you already know how Catmull-Clark subdivision behaves, but be aware that it acts quite differently from Reyes polygon smoothing. 

Basically, with Catmull-Clark subdivision, the points that make up the profile of a model, from any angle, are moved inwards to form a b-spline - the curve formed is not constrained to intersect each point (and in fact it never really does).  With Reyes, the points that make up the profile are not moved at all, and the curve formed is more like an Akima or Bezier spline - the curve formed is constrained to intersect each point.  You probably know this difference between spline types already, just providing this info for any who are curious.  You can see this going on with your katana hilt, where the inner part of the grip is being shrunk inwards (assuming that is a Poser render with smoothing on, it looks like it is to me).

The curves formed by the two methods are very different, but with enough control points (that is, edges of your model) they can appear much the same.  Frankly I wish Poser would dump the whole Reyes polygon smoothing approach and join the rest of the world (Catmull-Clark subdivision) but I think that is unlikely to ever happen.

pjz99:

Thank you for your input, and the link to Reyes Wiki page.  Reyes sounded familiar to me when you first mentioned it, and after visiting Wiki, I remembered I researched them years ago while studying about BMRT, Phong, Catmull-Clark, Doo-Sabin, Delaunay, and etc.  I was very impressed when I found out they did the planet transformation at the end of Wrath of Khan.  I just need to re-familiarize myself with Poser 6 rendering abilities.  I am still stuck in working in Poser 4 mode, so I rarely fire P6 up, and I am trying to make my products capatible with P4 as well.

As far as the picture I posted, it was only a screenshot (quick 4X antialiasing phong render in Deep Exploration) and not an actual Poser or DAZ Studio render.  To illustrate the correct rendering aspects of my models smooth groups, and hard/soft edge topology.  The inner part of the Katana hilt is actually a separate model.  In fact, entire model is made up of individual real world parts.  Only one part was caged/Catmull-Clark Subdivided, the Tsuba (hand guard).  I prefer the long process of hand looping all topology to suit my needs.

Thank you again for all your help.  I may have more questions after I resume testing in Poser 6.

Take care all...
Ken

Quote -
pjz99--
I think you understood what I was getting at but just to be sure: that wasn't any kind of complaint about your modeling work, which is excellent, just an observation about how it behaves (at least the older stuff).  Keep up the good work :)

no worries :) ..that old P4,PP content doesnt hold up very well with todays tech,not just smoothing but textures also look terrible,I still see the ocasional render in firefly that uses P4 style bump maps

Quote - the distinction doesn't seem obvious,

I agree there,its hard to know what people mean when they refer to posers smoothing,do they mean Reyes or Phong smoothing?two very different things that should have been given different names.

**DaremoK3.. **I'm not sure if other modelers have this option but you might look into using 'smooth groups' for your exported obj's,unlike the Poser crease angle which can only be done on seperate objects or body groups,smooth groups can be done to selected faces on an object,
here's an example obj.
http://stefan-morrell.com/3dsmax_Smoothgroups.zip

Quote - Also, what versions of Poser (or DS if applicable) do you guys use (especially ockham, pjz99, bagginsbill, stonemason, carodan, and maclean)?,

I use Poser 6 through to Poser beta,PoserPro is my personal choice for fast rendering.
& I use D|S 2(I stay a build behind the public version as it usualy has a bigger user base) ,& I'm a big fan of D|S 3 too.

hey Bagginsbill..have you looked at D|S3 recently?..I'd love to see what you could do in shader builder & shader mixer which seems to offer many things Poser does and some...the only thing D|S users are lacking now is a 'D|S Bagginsbill' :)