this is what i wanted to know. so the GI is using the colors from the  ENV_sphere?thats nice.

"Color bleeding" is a basic feature of Global Illumination, to the rest of the CG world.  If it didn't feature "color bleeding" then it wouldn't really be GI to most people.  Glad to hear they're working that in, it's about damn time.  I guess I will have to stop smoking (also about time) so I can cough up cash for this instead of bits of my lungs.

I'll be really cranked if they haven't fixed the various rigging bugs though.

Quote - So for human figures, I care a little less about SSS, since I was mistaken about where these effects were coming from. They are the result of diffuse inter-reflection, not sub-surface scattering.

SSS is one of those features that people tend to over-use on human character renders anyhow, to the point where you have images that look like people are made out of solid latex rubber with a brilliant spotlight behind them, with an SSS border of about half an inch.

Quote -   Glad to hear they're working that in, it's about damn time. 
.

its about time that DM shadows would start to work how they should. so we will see.

not everything needs to be physical correct to look realistic.

Quote - > Quote - So for human figures, I care a little less about SSS, since I was mistaken about where these effects were coming from. They are the result of diffuse inter-reflection, not sub-surface scattering.

SSS is one of those features that people tend to over-use on human character renders anyhow, to the point where you have images that look like people are made out of solid latex rubber with a brilliant spotlight behind them, with an SSS border of about half an inch.

i agree with this post. what some people dont understand is that ''less is more''.

when those people think about SSS they think about the red parts on the skin. so they think that they need to make it obvious enough so that we will notice it. we notice SSS even if its subtle. and subtle is realistic. but to them  of course it needs to be ''in your face''.

Omg I wasn't going to bother upgrading from p6 to p8 but this thread has sold me. Bill thank you for telling us some features and showing us some renders.

Quote - > Quote -   Glad to hear they're working that in, it's about damn time. 

.

its about time that DM shadows would start to work how they should. so we will see.

I gave up on depthmapped shadows in all rendering apps more than a year ago.  For still frame pics I think they always look terrible.  You'll probably find they REALLY don't mix with GI, even worse than IBL rendering.

LOL Alyson above is done with depth-mapped shadows.

What do you think of that?

well in other 3D software they are fast. and if you are going for artistic lighting you need 100% control. why do you think Pixar is not using 100% GI? because they can not control it. GI is physical correct and you can not control it.

and for fill lights using always raytraced shadows is very hard . thats why i think if the DM shadows work good then we can use them for fill lights and for some extra color or even for Rim lights. but not for sun or for realistic shadows.

The outdoor one?  I think there isn't enough shadow going on in that particular pic to matter.  Do your desktop pic with depthmapped shadows and see how that comes out.

Quote - Omg I wasn't going to bother upgrading from p6 to p8 but this thread has sold me. Bill thank you for telling us some features and showing us some renders.

A 2-step upgrade is almost always worth it. For some people, I suppose P8 is not worth the step up from P7. But P6 to P8 is a crazy big difference.

Quote - well in other 3D software they are fast. and if you are going for artistic lighting you need 100% control. why do you think Pixar is not using 100% GI? because they can not control it. GI is physical correct and you can not control it.

Pixar does not use 100% GI because (at least right now, with computing resources costing what they do) it's not cost effective for them to use maximum quality techniques when they can be faked and save literally millions of dollars in computation time.  All the big dog renderers actually have compositing features built in to allow individual objects to accept or emit GI (and pretty much every other effect) on a selective basis.

Quote - The outdoor one?  I think there isn't enough shadow going on in that particular pic to matter.  Do your desktop pic with depthmapped shadows and see how that comes out.

if course it will not look good there because this is  an example where you need physical correct shadows.

Quote - > Quote - well in other 3D software they are fast. and if you are going for artistic lighting you need 100% control. why do you think Pixar is not using 100% GI? because they can not control it. GI is physical correct and you can not control it.

Pixar does not use 100% GI because (at least right now, with computing resources costing what they do) it's not cost effective for them to use maximum quality techniques when they can be faked and save literally millions of dollars in computation time.  All the big dog renderers actually have compositing features built in to allow individual objects to accept or emit GI (and pretty much every other effect) on a selective basis.

i was listening to a podcast where they said that they are not using it because they can not control it.

Sounds to me like they're using "100% GI" in a very strict sense (no compositing techniques).  If so then we're saying pretty much the same thing.  If you don't use the compositing features built into the big dog renderers, then yes, that can be considered "100% GI" and is not as controllable as using the compositing features.  Although I can tell you with some certainty that computing costs are a big factor in why they need lots of control.

Quote - The outdoor one?  I think there isn't enough shadow going on in that particular pic to matter.  Do your desktop pic with depthmapped shadows and see how that comes out.

I agree that one would fail, because the depth mapped shadows (as implemented in Poser) do not have variable blur based on distance from occlusion.

Further, I can't even demo that because I used a point light. I can't use a spot light because it doesn't go 180 degrees.

In any case, you're right about the Alyson pic doesn't really need RT shadows because none of them fall far from the occlusion. I used DM for speed - the RT shadow was taking forever through the transparent visor.

I'm not sure why DM shadows do not have a variable blur option. It wouldn't be that hard to implement.

''I'm not sure why DM shadows do not have a variable blur option. It wouldn't be that hard to implement.''

what do you mean? to make shadows look realistic like shadow maps?  it would not be hard to do? the CGI industry is trying very hard to do this.

Quote - I agree that one would fail, because the depth mapped shadows (as implemented in Poser) do not have variable blur based on distance from occlusion.

I'm not picking on Poser here, depth mapped shadows look bad in all rendering apps (that's what I was saying).  There are situations where the fact that they look bad doesn't matter, but I don't like to screw around with that when I only do still frames anyway (like the vast majority of Poser users).  For animation it is a lot less of an issue because the viewer doesn't have as much time to notice how fake this or that element may look, it's more about how convincing the movement of the animation is.

Quote - Further, I can't even demo that because I used a point light. I can't use a spot light because it doesn't go 180 degrees.

So no area lights, I take it.

Quote - I'm not sure why DM shadows do not have a variable blur option. It wouldn't be that hard to implement.

I hadn't looked into it that hard but I know it's a pretty uncommon feature (can't think of a commercial renderer that does it).  I did find a paper on such techniques:
http://www.whdeboer.com/papers/smooth_penumbra_trans.pdf

or something like this?
www.tabellion.org/et/paper07/egsr07_mtsm.pdf

BB it really would not be hard to do? dude call ILM ,WETA and Imageworks. they will hire you

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Wouldn't Poser be a lot cheaper? LOL

Well since my brother's paying for all the lodgings and my airfare is paid for by having air miles out the wazoo, all I have to pay for is food. So no, Poser won't be cheaper even if I eat like a pig. I'll still probably do both and eat a lot of rice for a month or two on my fixed income.

Your definition of eat like a pig must be different than mine. :-) Last time I went to Hawaii I spent $200 to $300 a day on food and drink.

Well I eat a lot of vegetarian and can probably get by for the 4 days I'm going to be there on $150 or less. Considering my budget these days. Frugal vacations are better than no vacations at all. I'll probably spend most of my time in the water snorkling anyway.

I was thinking of the one pjz linked, but that raytracing of multi-layer transparent shadow maps looks interesting, too.

Really, the math on these is easier than some of the math I build into my shaders. The variable blur based on skirt width is so easy they made a DirectX 9 version that runs in the GPU in real time.

Quote - Well I eat a lot of vegetarian and can probably get by for the 4 days I'm going to be there on $150 or less. Considering my budget these days. Frugal vacations are better than no vacations at all. I'll probably spend most of my time in the water snorkling anyway.

Ooh you're a much healthier and sensible eater than me. I envy you. I really am a pig. I can't pass up a correctly made steak, no matter what they're charging. I also love Sushi, and there were multiple occasions I've eaten $60 of Sushi by myself in one sitting. And, of course, I have to have my Grey Goose gimlet, a bottle of wine, and a cognac afterward, preferably with a good cigar.

I'm probably going to die early. LOL But I lived life to the fullest!

i think BB that you are  smart and good on computers. i dont think its easie. maybe easie to you but not to them he he .

Quote - > Quote - Well I eat a lot of vegetarian and can probably get by for the 4 days I'm going to be there on $150 or less. Considering my budget these days. Frugal vacations are better than no vacations at all. I'll probably spend most of my time in the water snorkling anyway.

Ooh you're a much healthier and sensible eater than me. I envy you. I really am a pig. I can't pass up a correctly made steak, no matter what they're charging. I also love Sushi, and there were multiple occasions I've eaten $60 of Sushi by myself in one sitting. And, of course, I have to have my Grey Goose gimlet, a bottle of wine, and a cognac afterward, preferably with a good cigar.

I'm probably going to die early. LOL But I lived life to the fullest!

LOL I love both Steak & Sushi and have on occassion eaten $30 worth of sushi myself (I was sorely tempted to do so today, thankfully the restaurant was closed!) It's probably wishful thinking to think I can get away from Hawaii without really going hog wild on food, but I will have to watch my budget or pay the consequences when the credit card bill arrives.

On Topic, I'll definately be upgrading to Poser 8 based on what's already been described in this thread. I just might not be able to jump on the pre-order band wagon as I usually do.

Quote - Really, the math on these is easier than some of the math I build into my shaders. The variable blur based on skirt width is so easy they made a DirectX 9 version that runs in the GPU in real time.

Well if it becomes common I'm sure that'll be great - for now I'm fine with area shadows in renderers that support them, or faking them with multiple lights where they do not.  Render time is not a really big factor for me since I don't animate.

We're looking inside a 3-sided box. There is a single spotlight shining in the opening.

This is without GI.

Notice how the hidden ball is now lit, instead of completely black. Notice that the sides of the little boxes are no longer black. Notice that the wood is color bleeding onto the white props.

See the gradient on the side of the box in the middle? That's impossible with IBL. A flat surface is always given exactly the same amount of light over its entirety when using IBL.

This is with GI.

Notice how the hidden ball is now lit, instead of completely black. Notice that the sides of the little boxes are no longer black. Notice that the wood is color bleeding onto the white props.*

Now,,, this snapped my head up. Poserlight is gone.  I wonder how good the gallery will look  this fall..

Probably much the same, because these features come with greatly increased render time - worth it to me, but I bet not to a lot of the "usual suspects".  There are already a few different ways to avoid nose glow but it's still there in 3/4 of gallery pics.

Quote - > Quote - Well I eat a lot of vegetarian and can probably get by for the 4 days I'm going to be there on $150 or less. Considering my budget these days. Frugal vacations are better than no vacations at all. I'll probably spend most of my time in the water snorkling anyway.

Ooh you're a much healthier and sensible eater than me. I envy you. I really am a pig. I can't pass up a correctly made steak, no matter what they're charging. I also love Sushi, and there were multiple occasions I've eaten $60 of Sushi by myself in one sitting. And, of course, I have to have my Grey Goose gimlet, a bottle of wine, and a cognac afterward, preferably with a good cigar.

I'm probably going to die early. LOL But I lived life to the fullest!

Good lord, you sound like my husband.  We'll spend $80 on Sushi between the two of us, and believe me, mine is usually the $15 plate :P

Quote - This is with GI.

Notice how the hidden ball is now lit, instead of completely black. Notice that the sides of the little boxes are no longer black. Notice that the wood is color bleeding onto the white props.

This is something I've been wanting in Poser for a long time.  :)  I know I've been "fangirl" about it earlier in this thread, but you're really not helping that at all :P

ach. me and the Wifey normally spend about $25 on sushi between us.

...the Sapporo is all you can eat Sushi..... urp 'scuse me....a wheelbarrow to take me to the car? why thank you.....(ok probably not the best Sushi, but they do non-seafood stuff I can eat (allergic to fish))....

looking good there on P8..

tho the main question I have is, have they fixed the OBJ importer?

I hesitate to ask, but my main question is: how much is the upgrade price going to be?

Or is that an inappropriate question? I seem to be really good at that today....

Quote - looking good there on P8..

tho the main question I have is, have they fixed the OBJ importer?

Excuse my ignorance, but what was wrong with the OBJ importer?

BB: Impressive images. I've been holding back from upgrading to P7, but with renders like these, I'm pretty much sold on P8.

there was an issue with artifacting on imported OBJ's. we were not sure if it's the OBJ importer or something to do with UVMaps.

I have no knowledge of the pricing, so I can't help there.

No worries, I'm sure that knowledge will come to light soon enough ;)

Thanks for your answer, Bill... it was probably an inappropriate question to be asking, anyway.

They should do like Maxon and C4D right now, the competitive sidegrade thing

Half off with proof of DS ownership

B)

Quote - I only started 3D a couple of weeks ago with Poser 7, so I'm not qualified to comment on P8 just in case I post rubbish. But the minor annoyances I have with P7 is all that wasted space to the left of the Trackball & Light Control etc. Moving them further left would allow us to make the Preview/Render screen bigger without it covering up the controls. Also I find the library and parameters/properties pallettes too big and clunky, streamlining them (or making it possible for us to resize them) would make it possible for us to maximize our monitor space.

I just know someone is going to tell me all this is already possible in P7. ;)

That is all MetaCreations "Bryce-ification" of Poser before they dumped them. They made their 3d programs' interface pretty and similar. It works in Bryce, not in Poser.

But my problem with Poser 8 I suspect will be the need for an intel based Mac to run it. I needed major hardware upgrades to run OSX to use Poser 5. Now the intel chip needed to run OSX 10.5 will forse me upgrade every progam all over again. That's expensive.

I just got a marketing email from Daz - I'm not supposed to get those since I opted out of all marketing emails. Since they violated my trust, I will now make a little fun of them.

It has a quote "The improved render engine is faster with even greater precision! - SophiD". Who is SophiD I wonder - the DS version of Bagginsbill?

Above it is a render of a street scene. There is a black sports car with yellow stripes. It looks like it is made of velvet, not paint. Obviously it wasn't done with accurate Fresnel reflection coefficients. There is a fire hydrant that looks like plastic. There are figures that look like plastic covered in plastic clothing.

Is that really the best demo render they could put on the marketing literature? I'm sure that DS 3 can render better than that.

So, Global Illumination will be in Poser 8, now that's worth the upgrade.  Wow, I'm impressed BB.

JB

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1873903&member

I'm going to pick one out of my favorites...and, while it's not the pinnacle of photorealism, it's damn close. 

lakota, maybe now would be a good time to consider an intel mac.  there are a bunch of reasons why they're more useful, unrelated to poser itself.

p.s. I heard there is one poser user who is still on OS 8.6, which became obsolete in 1997 IIRC.

p.p.s to the guy who wanted to know if the poser 7 interface, e.g. in pose room, is adjustable or modifiable, the answer is "yes".

Quote - Here's another demo render from me with Poser 8, using Poser 8 content.

Having carried hundreds of those to Kuwait, I can say that it certainly looks like the real deal.
Those treads really stand out.

I can almost smell the exhaust gases and hear the unique sound.

DR

Quote - Well, check out the gallery here, see what people create.  Some people, those who work their butts off to learn the program, get some GREAT stuff out of DS. 

I'm going to pick one out of my favorites...and, while it's not the pinnacle of photorealism, it's damn close. 

Like I said, I'm sure DS is a good program and can produce great results. That example was excellent. Why don't they put something like that on the marketing blurb?

No idea, but I know that I would ;)