I haven't used poser in a while and was contemplating using it again. I know that I need to at least upgrade to Poser 8, but what if any value would be added by getting Poser 2010?

I could currently buy Poser 8 and upgrade it to 2010 for less than buying 2010, but the time is limited for that deal to work.

A summarized feature comparison is the first place to understand the differences.

It is here: http://poser.smithmicro.com/comparison.html

Each person will find some things worth more or less than others. And, you may or may not have the hardware and OS assets needed to take full advantage. So as always, your mileage may vary.

The key things that generally get interest are background rendering (you can keep editing while rendering), 64-bit support (bigger scenes, more stuff in one render), and gamma correction. For those with multiple computers, network rendering is a big deal - 3 computers? Triple the rendering speed.

If you have a 32 bit OS, I would recommend Poser 8, unless you need to export to high-end applications. Main reason for me to stay with P8 is because it uses less memory then PP2010 does and P8 renders faster. If you're on a 64 bit OS. then of course, PP2010 is the way to go.

Quote - A summarized feature comparison is the first place to understand the differences.  The key things that generally get interest are... gamma correction.

Gamma Correction is now available in Poser 8, via Script/Partners/ShaderWorks/Postwork Manager.  A new window will open up.  Gamma Correction is a check box near the bottom, with a user-defined dialog box to set the value.

That's not true gamma correction. Postwork GC has several common failings.

1) It desaturates color in non-linear ways. While you can also use the postwork saturation increase, it doesn't come out the same.

2) It doesn't come up with the correct values because the incoming data (images and color chips) are not anti-gamma corrected. Poser Pro does both incoming gamma and outgoing gamma compensation, resulting in linear calculations in the middle. There are plenty of cases where you get wildly different outcomes.

3) Dark data is lost, and cannot be recovered in postwork. I can demonstrate if you don't believe it.

4) Subtle gradients are lost and get quantized - the artifact produced is called banding.

Of course, if you're not interested in that last 5% of quality, none of this matters so you don't need the "Pro" version.

Quote - That's not true gamma correction.

Oh.

Quote - Postwork GC has several common failings.

I was unaware of that.  Thank you for clarifying.

Quote - Of course, if you're not interested in that last 5% of quality, none of this matters so you don't need the "Pro" version.

I think it's really a question of how high-quality one wants their renders to appear.  I'm just a hobbyist, and wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other whether a render had GC - postwork or otherwise - without knowing what to look for.  I learned how to create dynamic cloth the other day, and ran a few cloth tests using GC on Andy.  They looked pretty good to me.

is dark data lost in poser 8 when rendering with HSV exp 1.67 and gain 1.33?
I've got a feeling it is, but I dunno how to find out (don't have PP2010).

Not lost so much with those settings. The response curve of HSV ETM isn't the same as GC, but it has sufficient similarities to get you partway there. And if you combine that with a little shader GC, or just a touch of postwork GC, it looks pretty close.

The big difference is all the faffing about with shaders and postwork, versus just turning it on in Poser Pro.

Oh - and the big problem is if you also want to use IDL. The bounced light from incoming textures is wrong wrong wrong. They are too bright and the IDL gets thrown off.

The only way to get accurate lighting in P8 with IDL is to use shader incoming anti-GC, producing linear colors. Then let the renderer do its thing with IDL, and then do a teeny bit of outgoing GC in the shader, followed by HSV ETM. This will look within 5% of what Pro does automatically. it's a lot of work. For those who have more time than money, it can be done.

Just to clarify my reply, according to the tests I ran, the difference between GC and non-GC is quite noticeable.  How accurate P8's GC is I have no idea.  I would need to see a side-by-side comparison of the two types to really understand them.

Note how the whites-gray-blacks are about the same, but anything with color is messed up.

Compare the subtle color variations in the foot - the postwork GC has lost them. And the skin hue has shifted more towards yellow.

Ok, yeah, definitely see what you mean.  That is remarkable.

Clearly the 'GC in Postwork' demo is inferior. Don't know how it was arrived at, but one can get closer to the look of the 'Render GC in Poser Pro 2010' demo with postwork (on the No GC image). Just need to experiment. Though having PP 2010 do it seems worth it to me, so I plan to get it when the sidegrade goes on sale again.

I used the Postwork Manager script as suggested earlier. Enable GC, set to 2.2.

I also got exactly the same results from Picasa "Fill Light", but in Picasa you have to guess the value because the slider has no numeric readout.

I also get exactly the same results from Photoshop "Levels".

Quote - but one can get closer to the look of the 'Render GC in Poser Pro 2010' demo with postwork (on the No GC image). Just need to experiment.

You're welcome to experiment, but I know the math of GC, and it's impossible to postwork it the same. The information about what actually came in (the incoming textures) is gone and can't be recovered from the final output. Proper GC is a calculation involving both the incoming material and the outgoing final color.

For example, consider that a pixel in the render is RGB 5, 10, 15. Was that because the original color on the object was 50, 100, 150 and the light level is 10% or is that the actual color of the object and the light level is 100%? You can't tell. And if you don't know which is the case, then you can't produce the right color in postwork.

If you care to try, I'm attaching the original no-GC image.

This is with render GC.

Quote - I used the Postwork Manager script as suggested earlier. Enable GC, set to 2.2.

Why 2.2?  The default is 1.6.

Quote - > Quote - I used the Postwork Manager script as suggested earlier. Enable GC, set to 2.2.

Why 2.2?  The default is 1.6.

Because we're talking about accurate representation of luminance levels. The gamma of your monitor, your camera, your scanner, your printer, and every other device that deals with digital images is 2.2, not 1.6 or any other number. Unless you have an older Mac (which was 1.8).

Quote - The gamma of your monitor, your camera, your scanner, your printer, and every other device that deals with digital images is 2.2, not 1.6 or any other number.

Ah.

Quote - Unless you have an older Mac

I'm on a home-built 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM and a 22" Acer.

Another demo of the postwork GC failure is here:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3652928&ebot_calc_page#message_3652928

I show the banding and zero-data problems in that thread. You have to look at the images full size to see the difference, but it's really obvious on any decent monitor.

Thanks for the link to the other thread, and again for the info and examples.  I understand the differences now.

But, until money starts growing on trees or tax season gets moved up several months, I'll have to stick with Poser 8 for now.

With the GC box and the non GC box, I would light the non GC box brighter and then do postwork. I think the best compromise if you don't have PP 2010 for GC, and you don't want to do GC in shaders/scripts etc. with Poser 8, or 7, is to light the scene where the image looks somewhat between the brighter looking PP 2010 GC renders and darker no GC renders, and then do postwork to enhance it. But not with levels gamma to 2.2. A mix of some levels and saturation adjustments like I showed above should do it (a lot of the time). That said, I'm sold on PP 2010's GC feature. I plan to get it. It is a benefit, and will cut down on postwork. Of course it's $250 today, so I'm holding out til it's on sale again for $200. (I'm talking about the sidegrade.)

Quote - I'm sold on PP 2010's GC feature.

Oh, I'm definitely sold on it, too.  I just don't have $500.  Yet.

Unsubscribing , I really don't see why every thread that even mention GC has to be turned into a in depth GC one?  I hope the OP is helped by all this information.

Quote - > Quote - I'm sold on PP 2010's GC feature.

Oh, I'm definitely sold on it, too.  I just don't have $500.  Yet.

If you have Poser 8, or 7, you can get the sidegrade to PP 2010 for $250. And it's been on sale at various times for $200. That's what I'm waiting for to happen again :)

Quote - If you have Poser 8, or 7, you can get the sidegrade to PP 2010 for $250.

I have Poser 8.  I e-mailed SM about that earlier today.  They wrote back that I need both Poser 8 and Poser Pro to qualify for the sidegrade to Poser Pro 2010.

Quote - And it's been on sale at various times for $200. That's what I'm waiting for to happen again :)

Nice!  Hopefully I'll be able to catch that sometime.  :D

Quote - Unsubscribing , I really don't see why every thread that even mention GC has to be turned into a in depth GC one?

It turned into one because I was under the mistaken impression that Poser 8's postwork GC is the same as what's available in Poser Pro 2010.  When Bill corrected me on that point, I asked him to clarify.  His explanation confused me, so I asked him for more info and a few side-by-side comparisons.  He obliged, and now I understand.

And now I want to upgrade to Poser Pro 2010.

;)

Quote - I hope the OP is helped by all this information.

So do I.

:)

There is a difference between the "Update" for about 250$ and the "Sidegrade" for people who have PP and P8. for about $70. I did not check the prices yet, so I they may not be exactly true but it should be close.  P8 alone is good for an update, but not for a sidegrade, IMHO

Quote - There is a difference between the "Update" for about 250$ and the "Sidegrade"...

:: double checks SM's site ::

Ah!  So there is!  It's the first ad for PP 2010 under the Upgrade Now banner.  Sidegrade from Poser for $249.

Thanks!  :D

Attached Link: poser.smithmicro.com/upgrade.html

I just re-did my budget for the month and am downloading the sidegrade for Poser Pro 2010 now.

hehehe

Quote - That's not true gamma correction. Postwork GC has several common failings.

1) It desaturates color in non-linear ways. While you can also use the postwork saturation increase, it doesn't come out the same.

2) It doesn't come up with the correct values because the incoming data (images and color chips) are not anti-gamma corrected. Poser Pro does both incoming gamma and outgoing gamma compensation, resulting in linear calculations in the middle. There are plenty of cases where you get wildly different outcomes.

3) Dark data is lost, and cannot be recovered in postwork. I can demonstrate if you don't believe it.

4) Subtle gradients are lost and get quantized - the artifact produced is called banding.

Of course, if you're not interested in that last 5% of quality, none of this matters so you don't need the "Pro" version.

Does this apply to the "artistic lens" method you posted a while back? I like the fact that Poser Pro will perform the incomming gamma correction, since one usually doesn't have gamma corrected materials (and it seems like a real pain to work with mixes.) I'm putting off getting Pro 2010 mostly because of the rendering speed issues, but it will probably be the first software I buy when I replace my current machine.

Yes - the artistic lens is actually postwork. It's just postwork using Poser. So it suffers with the hue/saturation shifts.

However, it does not exhibit the zero-data problem or the banding problem. It has full access to the floating point color values. It is not constrained by an 8-bit quantized representation.

Where is a detailed list of the differences between Poser 7 and Poser 8?

Does Poser 8 still have a rendering option for Poser 4 type rendering?

Attached Link: http://poser.smithmicro.com/comparison.html

The P4 render engine is gone in Poser 8 and Pro 2010.
But:
Firefly is now A LOT faster than it used to be, so I defnitely don't miss the P4 renderer.
(And I used it a lot)

I actually saw the render banding in poser 8 once.  haven't been able to duplicate but it
may have been a case where lites were way too bright.  it looks like jpeg banding, which
is an artifact one gets when saving as  jpeg and gradients have no noise in them.  but
it was strange to see it in an uncompressed render.

Quote - Where is a detailed list of the differences between Poser 7 and Poser 8?

Anthony, when you started a new thread without reading this one, I pointed you here because the answer to your question was here, in the first reply, by me.

Now you asked it again, WITHOUT READING THIS THREAD FIRST.

hi everybody,
i got ppro2010 some days ago,
what do i like from ppro2010 vs p8

• Rendering is really faster except i dont use IDL ON
  (well IDL isnt a solution for every render or  do i guess wrong? )
• Network Rendering, (to give some old computers some work, but i discovered that the results are sometimes different in comparison of rendering on mainpc vs rendering on a network pc)
• Backgroud rendering (well nice but prefer network rendering)

and the GC Question ,,, OMG
the more i read in the forums, the more i get confused about the GC feaure of ppro 2010.
hmm, dont remember default  settigings, but my result is

if turn GC on in the rendersettigs Page (value of 2.20), my images looks washed out.
if i turn it off, my images looks a lot better.
well heard that ppro 2010 handles the incomig textures different to P8 ....

i wish somebody would describe clearly , (in easy words)  whats about with that GC in PPro2010.
(the only one i could imagine to do that would be BB :))

greetigs
GC desperated xuu4u

Xuu4u, I would recommend that you google gamma correction in general and understand how it applies to the real world and computer 3D graphics applications.  Start with wikipedia.  Once you have a rudimentary understanding, follow up your education by perusing the threads concerning Gc, especially those involving bagginsbill.  It would be pointless to steer you to specific threads which could lead to further confusion and misunderstanding. 

BTW, the reason your scene looks washed out with Gc, too much lighting.

thank you hborre for your tips.
i read already some rosity threads and googlepages of GC. (some time ago)
Working in former times with P7 / P8 and VSS (reading  bb's threads too)
i head resultst that was understandable.
With PPro2010, it looks like all has changed. 
I reduced my lights down for 50% or more and the image still looks washed out :(

does PPro2010 gc the input if i turn Rendersettings gc off and so on ...
arrrgl that drives me mad ...
srry if i complain, but the poser docu about gc is, to say in this way "very thin"

xuu4u - Is everything washed out or is it just figures that have VSS on? Because VSS applies shader GC, and if the renderer is handling it, then adding shader GC on top ruins it. It's like you run a levels adjustment twice. Once is the right amount. Twice is too much. When you use VSS with render GC, you have to change the gamma value in the shader to 1, instead of 2.2.

I only recently figured out how to make shaders do that for you automatically. When I have time, I will publish a new set of VSS shaders that are compatible with render GC or no render GC automatically.

If you need screencaps for where to make the changes in VSS, ask.  I do have several images sitting on my hard drive which were used before to visually illustrate the locations.

I try to show what i mean with  "washed out".
The inlcuded Pic based on a szene with V3, some cloth BB's Fullbody Lights (NO VSS Prop used)
Above Picture : GC in Rendersettings OFF
Lower Picture : GC in Rendersettings 2.2
To much lights ?, well i tried Reducing the lights a lot, but it doenst matter what i do to the lights
the result looks always better with GC in Renderesetting off.

Loosing of details with GC on, could be avoided, by GC Settig of 1 for Displacment and Normal
Maps via manual correction (Texture Manager) or the changegamma script.
But this alone wont solve my problem.

My best results in other szenes are with:
GC in Rendersettings off, Using VSS_PR3_NoAO, or VSS_PR3_AO depending
on usage of AO via Lights or via VSS. (GC Values unchanged in the VSS Prop, means 2.2)

What are your light settings?  You neglected to mention that information in your post.

@hborre
The ligts used are "BB's FullBody lights". (and it think this information is in my above post)

Are these BB's original light sets he published with his original VSSProp?  If so, those light sets are much hotter than they were intended to run.  This means light level intensities must be turned down considerably.  My recommendation would be to create your own lights, 1 infinite, 1 IBL each with RGB diffuse color 255, 255, 255.  Infinite light, 75% intensity, raytrace shadows;
IBL 10 - 15% variable with AO activated, default settings.  Try that combination first, then make adjustments as needed.

@hborre
the lights are the original BB lights from the VSSProp.
i will try to create a new light set with your suggestions. thanks

The effect you are seeing is perfectly normal, that is how Gc should work.  You lights are still too bright in your second render with Gc, if you are looking to duplicate the image on the top.  Is there any material Gc present and did your render exactly the same as above, Gc off at render and Gc on for materials?