Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 17 8:56 pm)
Subject: VSS shaders look terrible
- 1
- 2
Quote - Join the club.
That was helpful. :blink:
You need to have a look at the shader. PR3 shader GC is set to 2.2 by default... need to set it to 1. Also, all non-colour imageMaps (bump, spec, whatever isn't colour) need to be set to Custom Gamma Value of 1 (not using the Use gamma from render settings). This needs to be done for the whole figure.
Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]
First of all, after you bring in your VSS prop ( I assume you're using VSS_PR3_No_AO) go to the material room and select the prop. Go to the Template Skin material and on your left you'll see a series of nodes all beginning with PM. These are the nodes that, for the most part, you'll be adjusting. You will always want to change PM:Gamma to 1.000 when you use GC in the render settings. I usually do a test render of the skin to see what the bump will come out like but sometimes I change PM:Bump to 0.015 from the default 0.03 (especially with the DAZ elite textures) This will vary so try it out first before you make a full-blown scene. You can also adjust the PM:Shine to something stronger and enhance it with a specular only light. For the examples I'll post below I had it set to 0.35.
Finally,scroll down and change PM:SSS to 0.3 from the default 1.000 otherwise you'll get more of a reddish tint. Of course you're free to play with these settings and see what works best for you.
When I have everything in my scene set up I go to Scripts/MaterialMods/ChangeGamma. Input 1 and click ok. In the drop down menu select 'all props and figures' hit ok, and then select all of the above and ok again. This will ensure GC does not wreak havoc on these maps. Another step I always save for the end is disabling Texture filtering. I find that I get sharper renders that way. SVDL has a nifty script here in FreeStuff http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?user_id=99327 It's the Poser 7 Texture Filtering Utility but which also works in PP2010. Apply as follows: Scripts/SVDL/Texture Filter. Quality Setting: Off Apply To: Entire Scene. Next, and this is important, I choose any hair figure or prop and rerun the script this time at Quality Setting: Quality Apply To: Current Prop or Current Figure depending on what the hair is. Do this for any hair you have.
As for lights, although the lights supplied for vss are a good starting point I find it's best to make your own. Using the environment sphere instead and one infinite light for shadows is a simple yet effective way to start experimenting. I also suggest adding a specular only light to bring out more details. You can set up a light in the material room as specular only. Make a light, select it and go into the Material room. From the Wacros on your right Choose "Set Up Light Style".
Render settings are also important and make sure you use the D3D Firefly render python script found in Scripts/Partners/D3D.
I can't attach more than one image so bear with me. First are my regular settings and then the Firefly render settings via the python script. Following that is the raw render. I used BB's environment sphere with one of Philo's sky panoramas, an infinte light as the sun set at .7 Shadow strength and at 80% intensity. A point light as a rim light set at 125% intensity (no shadows) and a Specular light at 50% intensity.
The render to 30 min with PP2010 running in Low Priority as I surfed, listened to music and browsed my Runtimes with P3DO Explorer, so I'm not complaining about render times :)
I can't attach more than one image so bear with me. First are my regular settings and then the Firefly render settings via the python script. Following that is the raw render.
This was a fast render and I got something funky going on with her eyes but disregard that please :)
Hope this helped!
I have also found that for some textures gamma 2.2 looks worse than HSV set to 2.2
But often if you have gamma correct on then you need to reduce your light intensity, and maybe one point light in a room may be enough. also it is important when you turn on GC to turn it off for all the transmaps and bump maps in your scene, which I do with a script.
Love esther
I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!
Robynsveil...
My comment was supposed to be a reference to all of the threads that have gone before about this issue. I guess I need to quit trying to use irony. The subsequent posts simply bear out the fact that to use the GC feature requires the jumping through of numerous hoops on each and every item loaded into the scene. I also feel that VSS as it stands is not a good solution. BB has stated more than once that it is a vehicle for him to use to set up render solutions for us. I think it adds a layer of complexity instead of simplicity.
My opinions, which I am entitled to, and for which I'm sure someone will crucify me.
Quote - The subsequent posts simply bear out the fact that to use the GC feature requires the jumping through of numerous hoops on each and every item loaded into the scene.
I'd have to disagree with that. I think I showed how you can just set your material properties for the entire scene and not for each item separately. The only thing I mentioned doing separately was the texture filtering of the hair which has nothing to do with GC. I honestly thought this was going to help and not make matters confusing. I guess I'm not cut out for tutorial writing....
You can select the VSS prop in the material room and open the material named Template Skin.
Set PM:Gamma to the level you want. It seems to me that higher gamma levels decrease the illusion of depth by lightening the shadowing around the edges of a figure.
Bump can be decreased by decreasing either PM:Bump or the bump level in PoserSurface, or both. I've noticed that some texture sets seem to be more sensitive to bump level than others.
If you want you can save the prop in your VSSProp folder. I've got about ten of them :)
PS-- I'm thinking that setting render shading rates below .2 doesn't do any good unless you go through the properties tab for each part of the figure and set the shading rate below the default .2 -- fwiw
To interject, BB VSS lights are too hot, they were incorrectly created and need to be used at a lower intensity than originally thought. You are better off creating your own. Also, the use of gamma correction within PoserPro and PP2010 environment means lower light intensities for all lights incorporated into the scene. The traditional 100% light intensity for daylight infinite or point light can be lowered to 75% to obtain the same results. To cite an example, follow this link:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2152637&user_id=343328&np&np
Also, to prevent render choking, lower the diffuse_value on most figures and props in your scene, especially when using IDL in P8 and PP2010. This type of restriction is already built into VSS, but it is well to note that most models are defaulted at 100%. This is another cause contributing to wash outs, particularly in light colored textures.
Be aware, as Poser continues advance, many dated models, although excellently made, will need to be modified to work correctly with the newer render engines. That simply means modifying Material Room node values, reconstructing node structures, and perhaps adding and deleting nodes to enhance particular effects. This is my workflow, and I find it fascinating when I reconstruct shaders within the Material Room. Such rework is reflected in the link above. It is coming to the point when load and render will no longer work as expected, and many vendors will need to change the way they package their content.
"It is coming to the point when load and render will no longer work as expected,"
that is very scary for me.
I buy content in order to load and render. Getting the pic as fast as I can is important if I really want to update my comic every month.
Love esther
I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!
Quote - PS-- I'm thinking that setting render shading rates below .2 doesn't do any good unless you go through the properties tab for each part of the figure and set the shading rate below the default .2 -- fwiw
markschum did a python script to automate this.
http://www.sharecg.com/v/48560/gallery/8/Script/poser-script-to-set-shader-rate-in-actors
Poser Pro 11, DAZ Studio 4.9
Yep, Esther, that is disconcerning. Out of habit now, I examine each content in the Material Room and make quick changes and adjustments for initial renders. Images created for reflection maps are discarded because I heavily rely on skydomes and IDL for enhanced lighting. I disassemble bump and displacement maps generated directly off image_maps and recreate them using 3rd party software. A pain, for sure, but I have more control over how sharp or blurry I would like the map to be for better renders. Then I evaluate the scene overall, and decide where I can skimp or enhance with shaders. It takes longer, but I am satisfied the results.
I'm with you, estherau...
I buy content as opposed to spending my time creating it, because I am after throughput. Anything that slows me down without clearly visable dividends is an irritant.
For example, IDL does slow things down, but there is a noticable improvement in the results, and a much simpler lighting strategy that it allows, so it is, imho, very much worth it.
Frankly, I've always thought GC was a colossal waste of time from the very beginning of this discussion a year or so ago. 9 times out of ten I get EXACTLY the lighting I want through simply setting the lights the way my common sense and experience tell me to. (I've been a photographer and have a great deal of TV experience.) When I do need a little help to short-cut things, HSV serves my needs perfectly.
I'm sure the true purists can see the difference in all three kinds of renders. I cannot. So, for me, GC is a colossal waste of time. If it were so wonderful, I suspect that the merchants would have begun to include settings for it in their products, just as they did when AO was the latest, greatest thing. From what I see, they have not.
This leads me to believe that GC is a fascination for a very few power users who have both the knowlege of Poser and the patience to fiddle with it and meet all of its needs. Hborre's post just above bears this out. I have no idea HOW to do the things he is talking about. For him and the others like him, that is fine. I'm glad they are having fun with it. For me, it's a serious bottleneck in my workflow. I'm waiting for the next release, when perhaps, Smith Micro will have the settings arranged automatically, and all of these things that currently bog me down with the process will disappear. Perhaps then I'll give it another try. If not, it stays turned off in my config sets.
Until then, I'm with you. I want things that I buy to work without heric measures.
Handle every stressful situation like a dog.
If you can't eat it or play with it,
just pee on it and walk away. :-)
....................................................
I wouldnt have to manage my anger
if people would manage their stupidity......
Quote - What am I doing wrong?
Just about everything. As you're new to Poser you have a steep learning curve ahead of you, but I'd recommend that you read carefully BB's notes about VSS. Do a search for 'VSS' and user 'bagginsbill' in these forums and you'll find a wealth of information.
Kalypso's given some excellent advice above, but when she says "Those controls don't work if you don't have matmatic installed" I think she means if you don't have Parmatic installed.
You need to understand what Gamma Correction does; how shaders work; how Poser lights work; and how all of these interact with the render engine before you can say "VSS shaders look terrible". What you really mean is "I can't get VSS to work because I don't know what I'm doing".
Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)
PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres
Adobe CC 2017
Quote - So, for me, GC is a colossal waste of time. If it were so wonderful, I suspect that the merchants would have begun to include settings for it in their products, just as they did when AO was the latest, greatest thing. From what I see, they have not.
I would postulate that the reason you're not seeing GC in products is that people A) Don't really understand why it might be a good idea; B) Don't think it's necessary/Don't care; and/or C) Can't be arsed to go through the steps to set up materials to work with Poser's render GC.
Sure, GC may take time to set things up right (like removing the blue tinting from the default V4 material diffuse color, there to compensate for an overly-red texture), but you've always had to do additional work to get a decent render out of Poser. I don't think I've ever seen a picture, rendered in Poser, that looked better than decent when all the person did was load the figure, props, morph, add texture, apply lights, and render.
________________________________________________________________
If you're joking that's just cruel, but if you're being sarcastic, that's even worse.
So does anyone actually have some good renders done with gamma ? And sorry but I dont mean the crappy 'everything lit at equal intensity' stuff that people keep posting, but stuff with creative, artistic lighting, esp stuff with low/night lighting. Like basicwiz, i'm also an ex and somewhat current photography guy and frankly all the examples (in pretty much all threads i've looked at) look like something a tourist with a mobile phone camera would shoot. If that's what gamma does then yeah i'm also gonna stay away.
Cameras gamma correct, too, but that isn't the last step. If it was, you'd see the same from your camera as you see from Poser.
The last step is contrast enhancement, and in my Nikon D90 I have a billion options here, but by default it doesn't do a lot of enhancement. I often see posts in photo forums complaining about the out-of-the-box dullness of the D90. The problem is easily solved by enabling contrast enhancement in the camera, so that it produces a look that people have come to expect.
Choosing to use little to no contrast enhancement after render is basically making a choice to produce non-PHOTO realism. It is pure realism, but not PHOTO realism.
I believe my gallery image "Dreaming in 3D" demonstrates my point.
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2154468
Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)
Attached Link: Example
> Quote - So does anyone actually have some good renders done with gamma ?
The attached link shows a picture I did that has some "artistic" lighting you mention, not everything lit up evenly. Without render GC, the shadows would have turned into inky-black patches of nothingness OR I would have needed to add a dozen extra lights (just one light for the scene as-is) to lighten things up.
Or just look at most of my gallery. Admittedly, I haven't got too many pictures there, but most of them are done with GC (except for some early ones) and I think you'll find a variety of lighting in them. (And if you want even more lighting variety, check out my gallery at Renderotica where there's a bit more freedom about nudity.)
The term 'Gamma' should not be foreign to anyone claiming professional photography credentials.
You should know that it's shorthand for the angle of the slope of the straight-line portion of the response curve of a given photographic emulsion or, indeed, any light-sensitive device. That curve is determined through the science of sensitometry. This is, or should be, one of the foundations of your photographic knowledge. It's the thing that I struggled with more than anything else when I studied photography, but it's absolutely critical stuff and getting your head round it pays dividends.
When you try to produce a print with good highlight and shadow detail, pleasing mid-range contrast etc., the things that are getting in your way are the gamma curves of the original (film) and the reproduction medium (photo paper). If you understand that and can measure those gamma values, it becomes unbelievably simple to produce great prints. I made lots of money in the 1980s producing impossibly good 'Cibachrome' prints because I figured out a way to deal with these Gamma issues, and to do that with a high level of consistency. Meanwhile, my competitors were wasting time and money doing test prints and producing more or less acceptable prints.
If you think gamma and therefore gamma correction is some kind of fad, a magic switch, a religious movement, or something devised by 'the gurus' to make you feel like an idiot, you have entirely missed the point.
It's a fact that image maps, be they JPEGs, TIFFs, PNGs or whatever, are encoded with a Gamma of about 2.2. If the Gamma was 1.0 they'd be linearly encoded. But they're non-linear.
It's a fact that mathematical operations defined in shaders - and this includes bump, transparency and displacement maps - work linearly.
It's a fact that mixing linear with non-linear operations in your shaders is going to be confusing and unpredictable.
All that GC does is ensure that everything in your shaders is 'linear' and therefore consistent and predictable. That's it.
I hope I've made the case for why you'd want to do that. But I'm not saying that you should. Just, please don't start this nonsense about GC being rubbish, why bother, it's a waste of time and all that.
Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)
PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres
Adobe CC 2017
Quote - I would postulate that the reason you're not seeing GC in products is that people A) Don't really understand why it might be a good idea; B) Don't think it's necessary/Don't care; and/or C) Can't be arsed to go through the steps to set up materials to work with Poser's render GC.
You are spot on in some regards, wrong in others.
A. I understand it. Owned all the densiometric grear in the world when I did my own color printing.
B. In the context of Poser, I fail to see significantly better results using it.
C. Absolutely. See B above. I don't find it's worth the trouble in my own workflow.
The only reason I joined this post is, I hate to see newbees bullied into using GC when they hardly understand the basics of Poser to begin with. I think it is a disservice to the new users, but that's simply my opinion, cklearly labeled as such.
Quote - The last step is contrast enhancement, and in my Nikon D90 I have a billion options here, but by default it doesn't do a lot of enhancement. I often see posts in photo forums complaining about the out-of-the-box dullness of the D90. The problem is easily solved by enabling contrast enhancement in the camera, so that it produces a look that people have come to expect.
Odd question, but is there a specific reason that's turned off in the D90?
WARK!
Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.
(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)
I find render GC in PoserPro2010 pretty straitforward, although I usually opt for a setting of about 1.9-2.0
IMO GC is a huge step forward for Poser rendering. I think it might (as these kinds of developments sometimes do) have revealed one or two of Poser's other shortcomings with materials & lighting but these things will come I'm sure. It's a bit of a shift in thinking regarding setting up a scene & lights/materials etc, but usually simpler in my experience than trying to avoid highlight burns & overly dark shadows that used to plague many renders.
I sometimes used to spend hours in an image editor correcting renders, now it's usually 5-10 minutes tweaking contrast & minor shading artifacts caused by IDL.
PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.
www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com
Quote - The only reason I joined this post is, I hate to see newbees bullied into using GC when they hardly understand the basics of Poser to begin with. I think it is a disservice to the new users, but that's simply my opinion, cklearly labeled as such.
Here's where the wheels fall off for me. With all due respect, seriously, where is the bullying? I've asked for evindence before and nobody ever produces it. It's really not fair to keep characterizing honest help as bullying.
It's not like anybody directly responds with a negative assessment of your competence, intelligence, work ethic, or art, just because you don't want to use this technique. What is said over and over is that this technique results in predictable results that avoids having to faff about and guess how a shader is going to respond to each and every different lighting regime. If you think you have no need of this sort of behavior, then great.
Further, this thread isn't about GC. It's about my shader, of which GC is only one part. However, the GC came up here because if you enable render GC and shader GC, you're making a mistake and you will get nasty outcomes. This is not an indictment nor support for GC. It's just a simple fact.
By analogy, if you wear glasses or contacts so you can see better, wearing both does not make you see great. Too much compensation leads to a bad outcome. The concept is "try for just right" not "more is better".
Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)
Quote - I sometimes used to spend hours in an image editor correcting renders, now it's usually 5-10 minutes tweaking contrast & minor shading artifacts caused by IDL.
This is the key point. It isn't about what you like versus what I like. It's that Dan now understands what was the main factor in render trouble, and he's past the point of dealing with it anymore. It's no longer a factor. The overall lighting is not a problem - not a subject of tweaking and adjusting - it's right - it's what you expect from real life. Then you apply your artistic interpretation to enhance the mood of the piece, instead of as a means to bring it back from nonsense in the first place.
Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)
I don't think this user is being bullied into using GC because the opening post they stated
"I'm really interested in BB's VSS skin shaders and saw from others that it gives amazing results. However, for me, it looks bad."
In order for them to achieve these "amazing" results using VSS then they will have to apply those rules that were used.
So the disservice is to say that something is too hard or above your knowledge level to do, so don’t do it until you get more knowledge. You have to give them the information and let them determine if they want to search, learn and apply those methods to their work.
Posers is not a load, light, and click render to get "amazing" results application, it is a learn as you go application
You might as well PAY attention, because you can't afford FREE speech
Quote - The only reason I joined this post is, I hate to see newbees bullied into using GC when they hardly understand the basics of Poser to begin with. I think it is a disservice to the new users, but that's simply my opinion, cklearly labeled as such.
Please show us where the OP was bullied. OP asked a question, got some answers, saw results and expressed satisfaction. And that is where the thread should have ended. It is the others who joined this thread (with no answers to provide to the OP) that started the whole GC/anti-GC argument all over again. And this really begs the question, why?
Quote - Fine. I'm wrong. You're right. I'm done.
look, mate, you've made it clear, several times how you feel about GC. the problem is, it's several times. now, it's only natural for ppl to get defensive when the arguement is revived again. please. let it drop ok? we can all get on with things then.
Airport security is a burden we must all shoulder. Do your part, and please grope yourself in advance.
Quote - *... out-of-the-box dullness of the D90. The problem is easily solved by enabling contrast enhancement in the camera...*Odd question, but is there a specific reason that's turned off in the D90?
Nikon never comes out and explains any of their decisions. The general assumption people express (unconfirmed by Nikon) is that on the mid-to-high end cameras, the user is more sophisticated and also interested in control and realism. By realism, I mean "high fidelity", i.e. the camera should show the scene as it really happened, and the post-processing is done in postwork, literally. The over-saturated over-contrasted look is "ooh pretty" and frowned upon by pros. Ordinary viewers like pretty bright contrasty pictures. Pros do too, but they want them that way after they do it with Photoshop or whatever, and have total control and high quality visual feedback (a real screen). Ordinary users want them "ooh pretty" OOC as they say. (out of camera)
Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)
I figured something like that was the cause. I know on TVs the factory settings are made up more for that ooh pretty in mind... because that's what people want. However if you try to actually set your TV to the right color settings (or the ones that extend its life) you'll get a different look. If those cameras are made with more professional level people in mind, then what you say does make a lot of sense, regardless of the reason it was really done for.
Plus in photography, you have to worry about lighting and all that to get a really nice shot at the time of the shoot, so maybe the photographer doesn't want to worry about changing things to looking pretty until later... It's probably easier to add contrast later than to take an image with too much contrast and fix it in case you need the real image.
WARK!
Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.
(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)
Quote - A. I understand it. Owned all the densiometric grear in the world when I did my own color printing. B. In the context of Poser, I fail to see significantly better results using it.
C. Absolutely. See B above. I don't find it's worth the trouble in my own workflow.
The only reason I joined this post is, I hate to see newbees bullied into using GC when they hardly understand the basics of Poser to begin with. I think it is a disservice to the new users, but that's simply my opinion, cklearly labeled as such.
A: You might, but not everyone does, remember, not everyone who uses Poser or Daz Studio has a background in photography.
B: Try doing a render in Poser with a lot of dark areas, with and without GC, you'll find the GC version that you can make out details in the dark areas that simply aren't there in the non-GC version.
C: That's fine, just don't go the same route as the pro-GC people are claimed to go by implying that your way (no GC) is the correct way.
If you have developed a method of getting good renders out of Poser that doesn't involve render or material GC, that's fine. But don't try to discourage people from trying out GC and seeing how it fits into their workflow, and whether they feel the results are sufficiently better for themselves.
Your workflow is good for you, but don't presume to tell me that your workflow is superior to mine.
Edit: To the OP, in regards to the gamma corrected V4 looking worse than the non-GC one, that's because the default (and many 3rd party) texture has a light blue tinting of the diffuse color, to compensate for a texture that has too much red in it, and that blue becomes apparent with GC. Doing a search of threads about gamma correction should give you more information.
________________________________________________________________
If you're joking that's just cruel, but if you're being sarcastic, that's even worse.
Content Advisory! This message contains nudity
Quote - So does anyone actually have some good renders done with gamma ? And sorry but I dont mean the crappy 'everything lit at equal intensity' stuff that people keep posting, but stuff with creative, artistic lighting, esp stuff with low/night lighting. Like basicwiz, i'm also an ex and somewhat current photography guy and frankly all the examples (in pretty much all threads i've looked at) look like something a tourist with a mobile phone camera would shoot. If that's what gamma does then yeah i'm also gonna stay away.
as requested, "creative, artistic" lighting, including some with "low/night" lighting.
the following were done with P6
SOMA VI: Fear (NOTE: when i mentioned things being "washed out", i meant the light color, which wasn't linearized)
these three were done with P7, and include the raw renders for comparison, except for the last where all i did was a tiny bit of hair painting.
those are my medium light studies. i haven't posted my dark ones yet. that said, i think you can see there's a good amount of tonal variation in these. i didn't have to kill myself trying to match the lights in my photo references, and i haven't even had the opportunity to use IDL yet. the last was actually strikingly accurate to its source photo.
estherau - if you like things as they are, and you don't need your work to get any better than it is right now, then you don't need to take any more time. load and render works about like it always did because most products don't take any of this into account. most haven't changed much material-wise since P4 days. those that have, almost uniformly haven't taken any current material concepts into account (conservation of energy, Fresnel effect, SSS fakes, etc.). just turn off the features that have been added to Poser in the past few versions and enjoy. don't be afraid of losing anything. instead, realize that you can, with some effort, make your work even better than what it is now. realistic materials and linear workflow are just one way among very many of doing that. maybe they'll never be that important to you, and you'll focus on other areas.
for me, i find i want control over all my materials anyway. no one forced me to change. i spent ages and ages trying to make my own skin shader that worked consistently in all lighting, and found i absolutely could not get decent performance in both bright and dark lighting, let alone good performance. then bagginsbill discovered linear workflow and started posting about it and releasing his skin shader. i followed his threads, looked into it critically and thoroughly, and found that it was the difference between fighting to make decent materials (to the point of wanting to throw things and pitch a fit) and having them actually just work, no matter what type of scene i put them in. i was on a path, and linear workflow made progress along that path easier (so i never did pitch my computer out of the window). if you're not on a similar path, it's fine just to know it's there and how to use it if you need it.
basicwiz, K1Kun, pardon, but could you post some links or examples of your own work that you do find acceptable or exemplary? neither of you have a gallery here or links to sites. it would help to get an idea of where you're coming from and the type of results you're pursuing. basicwiz, i've seen you post on this subject more times than i can keep track of, but i've never seen any of your work. i never have any sense of what you're trying achieve artistically, or how you're coming to your conclusion about what's worth it and what isn't in terms of quality. i think you raise valid points about making choices to balance effort vs. results, but you extrapolate from your work to others without showing what your work is like. context and examples are very important when talking about different workflows.
those of us using linear workflow have consistently put our own work on the line and opened ourselves up to criticism in general and your criticism specifically. it seems to me that it's only fair for those supporting untranslated workflow should start posting their work and opening it up to similar critque. it would also make the conversation richer than simple for and against.
just to say, why is it that when bagginsbill uses a term like "crappy" in a general sense, GC opponents feel free to rant and rave, but when someone explicitly refers to previous posts in a thread as "crappy" as was done above, there's no outrage? Kalypso, i think your images looked good and certainly better than most on this site.
Hope you don't mind the excerpt. I'm not sure how this will look but on the right is the original where essentially everything outside the lines is black. On the left, boosted gamma to 2.2, where I can see everything but it is fairly washed out.
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken
quote "estherau - if you like things as they are, and you don't need your work to get any better than it is right now, then you don't need to take any more time. load and render works about like it always did because most products don't take any of this into account. most haven't changed much material-wise since P4 days. those that have, almost uniformly haven't taken any current material concepts into account (conservation of energy, Fresnel effect, SSS fakes, etc.). just turn off the features that have been added to Poser in the past few versions and enjoy. don't be afraid of losing anything. instead, realize that you can, with some effort, make your work even better than what it is now. realistic materials and linear workflow are just one way among very many of doing that. maybe they'll never be that important to you, and you'll focus on other areas."
Look I do see where yoiu are comming from but, no that isn't quite it. I buy premade content and I want it to work with minimal fiddling. for people that make one gallery image at a time or one book cover it doesn't matter, they will try to maximize their settings. For me, trying to make a comic without a team of story writers, pencilers, inkers etc like you get with real comics, I find that to make 100s of panels, first set up the scene and pose everybody in it etc incredibly time consuming. Now if the new features worked easily with my premade content then that would be good. I am happy to reduce light intensity or change my lights to a single point light in a room say and use gamma - but some of the textures just look washed out with gamma and the colours sometimes look richer and better with HSV 2.2 instead, and I suppose were designed for earlier poser versions. Also for a tooned look I may not even need these more tricky features that require more fiddling anyway. I toon all my pics mostly now using olivier's shaderworks.
It may be progress but I can't help feeling nervous if a lot of the premade content in my bloated runtimes is not going to work straight after loading anymore. I like a lot of the new features of poser pro 2010, particularly render queue.
Love esther
I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!
Esther, if you are looking for that toon look, then definitely you may not need to make any adjustments to your workflow to compensate for gamma correction. The topic leans more towards achieving some degree of realism in rendering. If you are under a time constraint and perform postwork to polish your style, then you can do away with further manipulation in Poser.
- 1
- 2
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Hi, I'm new to Poser so please be gentle. I'm really interested in BB's VSS skin shaders and saw from others that it gives amazing results. However, for me, it looks bad. It looks like the bumps are way too high but I'm not sure if that is really the problem. I'm using VSS indoor light 1 and GC of 2.2 in PP2010. What am I doing wrong?