That's beautiful. Thanks for the render.

One little caution: I don't actually know what the "Poser Logo" is, but whatever it is, it is a registered Smith Micro trademark. If that little man on the red circle is the "Poser Logo", you probably don't want to include that in your work.

Gotcha , thanks for the heads up on the logo, it was a -what software was used -type of thing for I guess those who didnt know. But I guess somewhere somone is mighty proud of that little red circle and dont want it displayed on anyone els's work.

and thank you for all of your hard work  on this wondeful script, I look forward to the final version.

You're welcome.

Just so you know, trademark protection isn't like most intellectual property. It is an odd rule that if a company does not actively protect its trademark in every infringement, it loses the right to do so at all. The trademark becomes public domain if they don't pursue you legally.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

The new lib from odf does not contain this file anymore. 

You're right. looks like it crept in from another folder which had another version installed (even got moved into a brand new folder).

Well, at least now I get another Empty collection for odf to fix :-):
RuntimePythonposerscriptsScriptsMenuluxPose_1_13pydoughposer_extractor.py", line 132, in collect_data
for i, v in enumerate(geom.WorldVertices()):
TypeError: iteration over non-sequence

Hey! Are you sure you didn't feed the script with donuts insteed of geometries? :) :)

I was wondering the same thing. :laugh: Well, I better go through my code and try to make it more waterproof.

The ball is a UV-less prop parented to Antonia's right foot. I used this to reproduce the bug Dizzi found in the geometry exporter. Apparently, I have to add another parented object with no vertices now.

Nice render, odf. It looks still just a tiny bit rubbery, but much better than most skin renders I've seen so far.

Little addendum on trademark: I am no lawyer and I certainly don't know the details. Found this on Wikipedia:  It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential.

So - forget I said anything.

Quote - The ability to change the Number of Threads in LuxRender is already there.  You need to look closer to the interface.

I understand that, I do it everytimeI open luxRender, it seems to default to 4 in my case.
I would like to have it in Luxpose so that when I open LuxRender and a file, it will start in 8 Threads.

Ok, I'm doing the naked GND4 over again. I added more gloss to her skin this time. NOW, I'm getting fireflies again. So, it's either the materials or it's the lighting, which I changed to one spot in Poser, or a combo of both ;o). I didn't get the fireflies when I used a Lux sun. Maybe once the light and material conversions are fleshed out, this might be less of an issue :o). At least I hope so.

I'm using the Windows CSV build dated 8/25 SSE2

Also, last time, when I didn't get the fireflies, I used Linear. This time, I'm using Reinhard/non-Linear.

Will show image when it's cooked a little more.

Laurie

Grrr. I was about to add the ability to automatically save the Lux scene files in the same folder and with the same base file name as the scene you currently have open.

Except ... there appears to be no way to get this information in Poser Python. I read a few threads about this in the Poser Python forum and all say the same. No way.

How ... can ... this ... be?!? It would be the first function I'd add to the API dealing with New, Open, Save, etc. All those functions are there, but not a function to ask what file is open.

Oh well - unless somebody knows something I don't know, this is a feature that won't be implemented after all.

Quote - Grrr. I was about to add the ability to automatically save the Lux scene files in the same folder and with the same base file name as the scene you currently have open.

Except ... there appears to be no way to get this information in Poser Python. I read a few threads about this in the Poser Python forum and all say the same. No way.

How ... can ... this ... be?!? It would be the first function I'd add to the API dealing with New, Open, Save, etc. All those functions are there, but not a function to ask what file is open.

Oh well - unless somebody knows something I don't know, this is a feature that won't be implemented after all.

Well, poop :(

Laurie

To be honest I'd rather have the lux scene files and the png in a dedicated folder anyway.
Can you allow us to set a destination folder using the GUI? That'd be my preferred solution anyway.

That does not compute.  If Poser Python can save a file, it has to be a way to extract the filename.  But I haven't done any programming since the early '90s, so don't pay me any mind.:)

In order to go to "tolux", I had to go to my AppData/Local/VirtualStore/Program Files/e-frontier/Poser...pythonscripts/... and there I found the tolux.  Not in the Program Files folder on C: drive., maybe that's the culprit.

How do you manage to get your textures in LuxRender?

Sorry for being so anxious.

You have to remove all but the most basic nodes. So, in order to test currently, Poser 4 type materials are probably best. It takes a lot of work in the Poser scene before you can even export to Lux at this point ;o).

Laurie

So, it doesn't take into the VSS materials, or most of the shaders (Poser 5 to now) yet.  I see.

Quote - So, it doesn't take into the VSS materials, or most of the shaders (Poser 5 to now) yet.  I see.

no.

Laurie

But, Bagginsbill will be working on materials, so that most that can be converted/translated to Lux will be supported.

Con tiempo... with time

Here is the render I was talking about above. In this one, the fireflies seem evenly distributed over the whole image, like snow. This is the Windows CVS build dated 8/25 SSE2. This ran for 2 hours.

Laurie

Looking through the fireflies, that skin looks amazing, Laurie! Once they get that ironed out, sheesh, what a spectacular renderer.
Oh and that hair... :tt1:

It would have looked half-decent if not for the fireflies ;o). But it's only a texture map with specular/white at 1.00 in Poser...nothing special ;o).

The hair is an old one - Aeris Hair for V3 by Danae.

Edit: I'm going to change from a spot to a point light in Poser and see if that makes a difference. If I still get them, I'll switch to an infinite and see if THAT makes a difference ;o).

Laurie

Laurie,

You can try changing the 'Surface Integrator' to 'Path', http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scene_file_format#Path

Or changing the 'Filter' to 'gaussian', http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scene_file_format#gaussian

It might help with the fireflies.
I don't have the syntax handy right now, but there have been a few examples in the threads.

It's ok Flenser...I'm trying to chase down what's causing it in the first place ;o).

I may be on to something...I changed out the spot for a point light in Poser and I'm not getting fireflies. At least, not yet ;o). Same light level as the spot. Nearly the same settings in Luxrender.

Laurie

Thanks Laurie, it did the trick, I'm coming up with something.

I'll still check back for updates though, it's gonna be quite interesting.

JB

Looky at the fireflies that won't go away.

On my old machine this would be 10 hours.

But with BBQuad (that's what I call his highness mister I7 860 - BBQuad) it was 38 minutes when I stopped it.

There were 3079 samples per pixel - way more than enough to eliminate fireflies. This is a bug.

BB: Definitely a bug, I agree. Is that the official release or a weekly build?

Latest weekly 64-bit.

If it is a bug, then spot lights make it worse, at least that I've found so far ;o).

Laurie

Quote - Latest weekly 64-bit.

Dangit! Let's hope the Lux developers fix it soon.

Quote - Nice render, odf. It looks still just a tiny bit rubbery, but much better than most skin renders I've seen so far.

What would you suggest to make it look less rubbery? Increase the roughness of the glossy component (around 0.24 at the moment)? Add a bump or displacement map?

Quote - How ... can ... this ... be?!? It would be the first function I'd add to the API dealing with New, Open, Save, etc. All those functions are there, but not a function to ask what file is open.

Well, if Python would expose all Poser methods and variable I'd agree that it should be there. But Python is the step child here, it's not getting enough attention. They added the inherit scale and morphs and didn't expose it to Python either (although it's tedious to set via the properties tab...)

I'd suggest to just add the ability to automatically add an counter to the output filenames, that will be persistent over Poser sessions, so you don't have to enter a filename all the time, if you just want to try different options... Even better: create a new folder for each scene file, that has the chosen name. That way the references to other lux files will stay intact when the folder name is changed and you don't have to edit the lux scene file...

Quote - To follow up on my fireflies problem:

Here is the render I was talking about above. In this one, the fireflies seem evenly distributed over the whole image, like snow. This is the Windows CVS build dated 8/25 SSE2. This ran for 2 hours.

Laurie

Who was saying "no good skin without SSS"?

Excelent!

I for me do not get mutch fireflys if I set the light intensity correct. And if I use pointlight sized to 500-1000% in Poser (scale). But I made just a couple of testrenders. 

Light intensity seems to works different for each light type in Lux compared to a Poser Firefly render. Pointlight is brighter and can "eat" all shadows from a spot if not corrected.

Quote - > Quote - How ... can ... this ... be?!? It would be the first function I'd add to the API dealing with New, Open, Save, etc. All those functions are there, but not a function to ask what file is open.

Well, if Python would expose all Poser methods and variable I'd agree that it should be there. But Python is the step child here, it's not getting enough attention. They added the inherit scale and morphs and didn't expose it to Python either (although it's tedious to set via the properties tab...)

I'd suggest to just add the ability to automatically add an counter to the output filenames, that will be persistent over Poser sessions, so you don't have to enter a filename all the time, if you just want to try different options... Even better: create a new folder for each scene file, that has the chosen name. That way the references to other lux files will stay intact when the folder name is changed and you don't have to edit the lux scene file...

All this should be done or at least be supported via GUI. But because bagginsbill does not communicate what his GUI is doing and how it is working at the end I sit back for almost 14 day now. "I do it all by my own if nobody steps on my feet" is a bad strategy for a community project.

Quote - Ok, I'm doing the naked GND4 over again. I added more gloss to her skin this time. NOW, I'm getting fireflies again. So, it's either the materials or it's the lighting, which I changed to one spot in Poser, or a combo of both ;o). I didn't get the fireflies when I used a Lux sun. Maybe once the light and material conversions are fleshed out, this might be less of an issue :o). At least I hope so.

I'm using the Windows CSV build dated 8/25 SSE2

Also, last time, when I didn't get the fireflies, I used Linear. This time, I'm using Reinhard/non-Linear.

Will show image when it's cooked a little more.

Laurie

fireflies are when you have 2-3 glossy bounce combined with diffuse bouncing.  he he ;)

Quote - To follow up on my fireflies problem:

Here is the render I was talking about above. In this one, the fireflies seem evenly distributed over the whole image, like snow. This is the Windows CVS build dated 8/25 SSE2. This ran for 2 hours.

Laurie

OMG the skin looks fantastic. OMG i am shocked

halleluja

Quote - To be honest I'd rather have the lux scene files and the png in a dedicated folder anyway.
Can you allow us to set a destination folder using the GUI? That'd be my preferred solution anyway.

I was just about to post this request myself, so I'll second yours. It's nice to have a dedicated folder to save scene files & renders to but I'd like control over where that folder is. At some point. :D

ps I'll add this to the wishlist thread.

Quote - > Quote - To be honest I'd rather have the lux scene files and the png in a dedicated folder anyway.

Can you allow us to set a destination folder using the GUI? That'd be my preferred solution anyway.

I was just about to post this request myself, so I'll second yours. It's nice to have a dedicated folder to save scene files & renders to but I'd like control over where that folder is. At some point. :D

ps I'll add this to the wishlist thread.

Seems I could extend the existing GUI to set an output path. I have to test if my "framework" works with it and setting up an error strategy.

Just a curious question, are you folks who are coding registered in the LuxRender forums and passing on what you find regarding the lights and fireflies and what not?

Quote - > Quote -

The new lib from odf does not contain this file anymore. 

You're right. looks like it crept in from another folder which had another version installed (even got moved into a brand new folder).

Well, at least now I get another Empty collection for odf to fix :-):
RuntimePythonposerscriptsScriptsMenuluxPose_1_13pydoughposer_extractor.py", line 132, in collect_data
for i, v in enumerate(geom.WorldVertices()):
TypeError: iteration over non-sequence

Should be fixed now on github. I tried with a parented prop with an empty geometry, got the same error message, modified poser_extractor.py, exported smoothly. I hope that finally solved it.

Quote - Just a curious question, are you folks who are coding registered in the LuxRender forums and passing on what you find regarding the lights and fireflies and what not?

I'm registered, but I'm absolutely not going to start bothering the Lux developers. Before I believe that Lux is broken, I'm going to assume I'm doing something wrong.

I don't want those guys to get a bad taste in their mouths from us pestering them for support when there's a real possibility that LuxPose isn't doing sensible things with light levels or materials.

For example: we all know that diffuse reflection should be less than 1. But how much less? I've been thinking about this quite a bit and I have some assumptions I need to verify.

For example, suppose you have a spotlight with an intensity of exactly 1 (1 what? I don't know).

Now common advice says that the diffuse component should be at most around .8. So what does that mean? It says that whatever spot you're looking at will be .8 times the luminance of the light.

But think about that. If you render this object from some viewpoint, you see roughly 80% of the light luminance coming from the object. 80% of the light is bouncing towards this camera position. Now move the camera and render again. Here, too, 80% of the light is bouncing towards this new camera position. How can this be? If 80% went to the old position and 80% is also going to the new position, then 160% of the light is going to these two positions collectively. That's impossible, right?

In fact, if you mounted a thousand cameras in a hemisphere around this object, you'd find that all of them are getting 80% of the light. What does that actually mean?

New Version, 1-14 (download: see footer) 

GUI extended

Tab Film has now 2 new fields. "Output Path" and "Poser Path". The later isn't used yet.
Output Path can be any directory. Be careful, because a path is created exactly as you write it. So you can't probably find your files after a typo :)
If Output Path starts with a "." (dot), its meant "relative" to path "toLux". The default path set for the GUI is ".1". This means, a folder named "1" is created inside "toLux" and content is written to this folder.

New tabs:

Geometry = Set Catlmull Clark subdivision for (all) Figures and/or (all) Props.
Light = nothing here at the moment

Quote -
I'm registered, but I'm absolutely not going to start bothering the Lux developers. Before I believe that Lux is broken, I'm going to assume I'm doing something wrong.

I don't want those guys to get a bad taste in their mouths from us pestering them for support when there's a real possibility that LuxPose isn't doing sensible things with light levels or materials.

Agreed.

Poser is so different from other 3D-Apps that we Poser people should be silent until Lux has advanced to version 1.0.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

The new lib from odf does not contain this file anymore. 

You're right. looks like it crept in from another folder which had another version installed (even got moved into a brand new folder).

Well, at least now I get another Empty collection for odf to fix :-):
RuntimePythonposerscriptsScriptsMenuluxPose_1_13pydoughposer_extractor.py", line 132, in collect_data
for i, v in enumerate(geom.WorldVertices()):
TypeError: iteration over non-sequence

Should be fixed now on github. I tried with a parented prop with an empty geometry, got the same error message, modified poser_extractor.py, exported smoothly. I hope that finally solved it.

Added.

Quote - > Quote - Just a curious question, are you folks who are coding registered in the LuxRender forums and passing on what you find regarding the lights and fireflies and what not?

I'm registered, but I'm absolutely not going to start bothering the Lux developers. Before I believe that Lux is broken, I'm going to assume I'm doing something wrong.

I don't want those guys to get a bad taste in their mouths from us pestering them for support when there's a real possibility that LuxPose isn't doing sensible things with light levels or materials.

For example: we all know that diffuse reflection should be less than 1. But how much less? I've been thinking about this quite a bit and I have some assumptions I need to verify.

For example, suppose you have a spotlight with an intensity of exactly 1 (1 what? I don't know).

Now common advice says that the diffuse component should be at most around .8. So what does that mean? It says that whatever spot you're looking at will be .8 times the luminance of the light.

But think about that. If you render this object from some viewpoint, you see roughly 80% of the light luminance coming from the object. 80% of the light is bouncing towards this camera position. Now move the camera and render again. Here, too, 80% of the light is bouncing towards this new camera position. How can this be? If 80% went to the old position and 80% is also going to the new position, then 160% of the light is going to these two positions collectively. That's impossible, right?

In fact, if you mounted a thousand cameras in a hemisphere around this object, you'd find that all of them are getting 80% of the light. What does that actually mean?

i am using all the  time LuxBlend with blender and i get fireflies. its a big problem and they know it. i think they are right now fixing it. in the future it will be fixed.

Exported with 1-14, Luxrender version : luxrender_CVS_250810_x64
System AMD Athlon X2 64 Dualcore 5600+, 4GB Ram, Windows 7 Home 64.

Cooked for 10 minutes.

Reinhard Mapping
Light Gain turned up to 4.0679

if anyone wants the RegCube let me know. I made it for my own use but if anyone would fine it useful I'll happly share.

That looks useful.

[nitpicking]
I would suggest to either use more faces for the sides of the cube or else turn 'compute_normals' off when exporting an object like this.
[/nitpicking]

turn what off now? and how? if you mean the banding? thats the light not the cube.. thats come in fine...

MarkerCube
a 1 by 1 by 1 unit cube (Not poser Unit) - six faces total.
Uvmapped in a Cross Pattern

Supplied texture has a simple marking structure and colour boxes with simple RGB and CMYK fills - each at 100% value.

Free to use by anyone, I put this totally in the public domain.

i did this (warning:nudity ahead)
with odf's material setup & a skyglob+hdr + distant light.  it doesn't have the 'pop' that sunsky gives but i really like the soft shadows & how the skin looks.  after a couple of hours i started playing with the noise reduction tabs & most of the graininess--i don't know that they were fireflies, just grainy--went away.  didn't have to postwork it at all.

i want to do more with sunsky without a backdrop but how do i get that nice gradient sky like in some of bb's early test renders?  all i get is solid blue or bluegrey.

i usually render to png in poser & add the background in photoshop so am hoping lux will eventually support transparent pngs.

Quote - turn what off now? and how? if you mean the banding? thats the light not the cube.. thats come in fine...

The banding is not the light. It's the exporter computing per-vertex normals for the cube when it shouldn't. Not your fault.

If bbml files worked in ADP's framework as bagginsbill intended, you would be able to turn that off for the whole scene if you put something like the following in your dataOut.bbml file:

Geom<br></br>
    compute_normals=false<br></br>

I'll patch my code to accept string options, since that is all I can get from the framework as it stands.

Another alternative would be not to weld the faces of the cube.