Quote - aside from being able to use Daz's hyped up new figure and another bullet point on the box, please explain how the addition of Sub-D to Poser, right now, would bring any real world benefits to Poser users. 

• lower memory consumption, as morph data and weightmap data (even the temp weightmaps created by spherical falloff rigging, mind you!) can be dramatically smaller

• quicker modeling and weightmap rigging

Blackhearted I can look at some of your content that I own and see you use subdivision yourself, do you really not see any application for Poser being able to do it natively?

Quote - 99.9% of it's users never messed with thr SetUp room.
99.9% will never use weightmapping.
99.9% won't enter the material room.
99.9% won't create their own lightsets
99.9% won't even pose a figure themselves.

Unless you're rendering a black screen, pretty much everyone uses all of those features all the time.  Pretending that improving these features has no value is dumb.

Quote - I'm not on the business side of the site, but I do know that if DAZ fails, we're not far behind.  In this case, it'd be more prudent for us to try to build them up, rather than watch them fall.

I throw my NON-Contentious vote to this post by Jen- and several Wolf359 posts. Long live Daz and Poser!

My experience is in BioTech btw, I've NEVER been an Old Spice Salesman (where did THAT come from?).  I did spend several years immersed in everything I could read about the underpinnings of 3D graphics including shader models, SubD surfaces, HDRI rendering engines. I've spend hundreds of hours experimenting with PoserPro2012's new SSS nodes-and am impressed. I can still do more with Lightwave (my "pro" app) and can play with subD there. I can also subdive polys in Lightwave and add bones and deformations.   But in the end- Wolf is a 3d pro and I'm not. :-)

I did purchase Zbrush4 and was having a blast making new morphs for V4- right up until PoserPro2012 caught my geek focus. I'll never own Max or Maya (unless I win the Lotto) and all the expensive plug in's needed to compete and play with High End near reality. But I'm aware of much of the function and quality available and aware just how far Poser has come since I was rendering the P3 female with shiny mannequin hair

 I dearly hope Poser and Daz both survive.If they do, eventually we will have GPU assisted rendering. PoserPro2012 and P9(?) are already capable of realistic dynamic hair- it's just that other than Carodan-nobody seems to know or use it. It's my next GEEK focus subject!

To paraphrase Star Trek. "Blast it Jim, I'm a scientist not and Old Spice salesman!" :-)

I for one don't want to fight against the subdivider/smoother while trying to make subtle morphs to a low-res model.  Sub-D at render time I wouldn't even be able to see what I was actually doing, it would have to show up in the preview window too. 

You need vertices to morph, and you need them dense to morph with detail.

(On the other hand, on Genesis, my old V4 morph looks exactly the same so I guess it can work out okay, I just don't know how it's doing it.)

Quote - I for one don't want to fight against the subdivider/smoother while trying to make subtle morphs to a low-res model.  Sub-D at render time I wouldn't even be able to see what I was actually doing, it would have to show up in the preview window too. 

Yes, that would be the ideal scenario.  (no snark, I'm simply agreeing)

I just want to say something here that seems to me is being glossed over and ignored.

I've been on staff here since 2005.  Since I came on staff, literally day 1, there have been threads prophecying the demise of DAZ.  They've given lists of reasons, many of them the same as those in THIS thread.  

looks around  Pretty sure the world didn't end when I got this press release in my email inbox.  

Here are some facts:

Most of what are in 3D stores rely on DAZ figures.  ESPECIALLY the major stores.  

Many of the artists that sell at any of the 3 main stores sell at ALL of them.  And all 3 main stores are trying to attract big-time sellers to sell with them exclusively.

We in this (3D, not Renderosity specifically) community have a tendency to see every change as a Chicken Little situation.  I can assure you that the sky is not falling.  It hasn't yet, and I don't see it doing so.  I don't see where being negative all the time about every change helps anything, ever.  

Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth.   -   Charles A. Dana

Quote - "

You make the same mistake many other users here make:

Treating Poser as a "poor man's" MAX or MAYA.

 

But Poser is different. It's users are different. It's purpose is different.

In the right hands, the "so called old" Poser rigging can do everthing "Pro" weightmapping can.

99.9% ....

Of course, Poser is not Max or Maya. But that does not mean that Poser shouldn't adapt new things, or we could still use Poser 4. Of course people use Subdivision and the Material Room, simply because the features are already in the sets they use. They will use Catmull-Clark as well, simply because it's built in. The figures will be smaller, it will be easier to make morphs for them, they will most likely bend better. 

I agree with you that Catmull-Clark subdivision won't be a reason to buy Poser for a large part of the customer base. But that does not mean that it doesn't make sense to include it. Otherwhise we would still have Poser 4.

"Blackhearted I can look at some of your content that I own and see you use subdivision yourself, do you really not see any application for Poser being able to do it natively?"

as has been pointed out though,  i believe simply implementing subdivision on its own would have little to offer right now in terms of figure realism.  as for reducing memory consumption, is this really so imperative these days when you can buy 16 gigs of DDR3 for under $80?  i was working with scenes of roughly the same complexity on an AMD K6II with 384 megs of RAM... nowadays the average cellphone has many times the processing power. the main memory/processing hits are still raytracing, reflections/refractions and IDL, and AFAIK these wont be improved much by subD.

i like the way poser is headed. we now have so many (oft ignored) tools at our disposal for importing/converting/modifying content. aside from what i mentioned with the hair room improvements, what id really like to see is further improvements to the morph brush to make it into a full fledged displacement painting tool (its getting there, but is still a little clunky), and cloth room improvements to make it more appealing and accessible to users - right now the vast majority of poser users ignore the cloth room because its 'complicated' and a new thing to learn.  heading in that direction i think that subD would definitely be a welcome addition.  but right now, just a rush implementation to satisfy Genesis compatibility would be a waste of resources.

the latest releases of Poser have brought some great improvements, and it seems to me that people are forgetting them because subD is the new white whale.

"Unless you're rendering a black screen, pretty much everyone uses all of those features all the time.  Pretending that improving these features has no value is dumb."

Well, then good luck with your weightmapped V4 or Antonia or whatever, rendered using GC, IDL and SSS that will still look only half as good as the PRO stuff over at CG-Talk and even if it did you'd still be laughed at by the REAL CG Artists because you didn't build it by yourself.

Is THIS the direction you want for Poser ?

I rather want a Poser that, yes, is the best it can be, but does so in a way it's fun and inclusive.

Playing with Genesis in Studio is just that.  Fun.

Because all the features are fully integrated.

Weightmapping is just a functionality of Genesis.

It's not a "pro" feature that just sits there by itself until you might use it some day or not to rig your own figures.

Sorry but yes, features that can't be easily used by the average user are pretty much useless.

DAZ obviously understood this a lot better than SM.

"I for one don't want to fight against the subdivider/smoother while trying to make subtle morphs to a low-res model.  Sub-D at render time I wouldn't even be able to see what I was actually doing, it would have to show up in the preview window too. 

You need vertices to morph, and you need them dense to morph with detail."

Exactly !

I have no problems avoiding the "pro people" and CG-Talk. This is a hobby for me, I'm a pro in my main job, which pays the bills well enough. Why should I try to compete with the pros? I like what I get, that's enough for me.

Weightmapping is not a feature of Genesis, it's a feature of Studio and Poser, which Genesis needs to work. It's as easy to use in Poser as it is to use in Studio, you bend the figure and it works. About how many features in Poser are used by how many People, well - it seems that Poser still has a lot of users. Does not seem to be that complicated. And CC-style SubD would be another feature which would be simply there, would make some thing easier but would not irritate the "99.9 % User", although I suspect that the number is very wrong. 

***Edit:

I agree with Blackhearted that P9/Pro 2012 are great pieces of software, CC-style Subdivision would be a nice add-on, but SSS, weight mapping  and fast IDL are great. 

Quote - Well, then good luck with your weightmapped V4 or Antonia or whatever, rendered using GC, IDL and SSS that will still look only half as good as the PRO stuff over at CG-Talk and even if itdid you'd still be laughed at by the REAL CG Artists because you didn't build it by yourself. Is THIS the direction you want for Poser ?

?

IDL and SSS have done more on this front than anything else until this point.  weight mapping has been the rigging improvement weve been waiting for, and for any remaining joint issues the morph brush is RIGHT THERE under everyones noses yet 99% of poser users ignore it. hair is the next big thing that needs improvement.

as for 'real CG artists', dont get me started on the fact that while they look upon Poser with contempt, it still hasnt stopped many from bodybagging Poser figures and stealing their textures.  in many ways Poser content creation requires far more effort/skill than your typical static CGtalk render.

Bantha, I'm all for improvements.

But I think the biggest improvement would be a set of real high quality figures.

Then realistic looking hair like Blackhearted showed.

Then a better/faster render engine.

Studio had real SSS for years. Most even didn't know it existed.

"Real" photorealism obviously isn't such a high priority for the average Poser/Studio user.

So why implement features that are strictly for photorealism if there are much more pressing matters ?

Why not some landscape tools. Like real instancing.

Wouldn't the average user rather have a "real" 3D landscape for telling his/her stories instead of "real" SSS that still can't fully match the "big boys" and will still look out of place on non-photorealistic meshes ?

I'm not talking about progress vs non-progress.

I'm talking about setting priorities.

Right now the priority seems to be what will make the biggest impact on a sales blurb, not what is it that helps the average non technical minded user realize his artistic vision.

I hate to show this picture again, but....

Please tell me in what way weightmapping would help me creating more realistic joints.

I actually didn't even use Poser 8's multiple spherical zones.

Just good ol' Poser rigging and ColorCurvators reverse deformation tool.

And no, it wasn't even hard to do.

So, sorry, unless the intention was to integrate Genesis into Poser, weightmapping is now just another bullet point feature.

Once we had access to a proper reverse deformation tool, it's use FOR POSER was largely diminished.

OTOH the animateable joint centers are REALLY something that was sorely needed.

BUT again, without a proper native and ready to use Poser figure, what will the average Poser user do with that feature ?

Blackhearted:

Quote - as has been pointed out though,  i believe simply implementing subdivision on its own would have little to offer right now in terms of figure realism.  as for reducing memory consumption, is this really so imperative these days when you can buy 16 gigs of DDR3 for under $80?  i was working with scenes of roughly the same complexity on an AMD K6II with 384 megs of RAM... nowadays the average cellphone has many times the processing power. the main memory/processing hits are still raytracing, reflections/refractions and IDL, and AFAIK these wont be improved much by subD.

Actually raytracing, IDL and a number of other features don't work well with Reyes polygon smoothing and work substantially better with a higher poly "real" mesh (e.g. given by subdivision).  These are not little things, they're fairly major problems like shadow outline (raytraced shadows don't take into account polygon smoothing at all) or artifacts with IDL when rendering with polygon smoothing.  I may misunderstand, but I believe that since the geometry created by Reyes poly smoothing doesn't really "exist" with respect to raytracing, some or all of these problems may not be solvable.  For example:

On the memory usage, unfortunately P9 is still 32-bit, so it still matters a great deal.  Plus a lot of users are still on 32-bit operating systems.  Perhaps it would matter less if/when everyone is 64-bit everywhere, but today isn't that day.

Note I'm not crapping on the many great advances in newer versions of Poser, far from it, just gosh, wouldn't it be nice to have integrated subdivison too?  As a content creator you're really not interested in such a possibility yourself?

JoePublic:

Quote - Is THIS the direction you want for Poser ?

As opposed to what you are prone to repeating, that all new features are useless/scary/incomprehensible, yeah, I would like features to improve and to have new features added.  If you seriously think that anything beyond Poser 4 is just extraneous garbage, maybe you should just stick to Poser 4 and be happy.  I mean really, what goal are you working towards here?  Time travel?  Go back in the past so that these terrifying new features aren't available?  And again, those are your personal preferences.

Quote - Weightmapping is just a functionality of Genesis.

uh what exactly are you saying with that?  did you think DAZ invented weightmapping? nobody is interested in weightmapping outside of Genesis users?  help me out here, wtf

"Why not some landscape tools. Like real instancing.

Wouldn't the average user rather have a "real" 3D landscape for telling his/her stories instead of "real" SSS that still can't fully match the "big boys" and will still look out of place on non-photorealistic meshes ?"

landscape tools in poser?

this is part of the problem - a symptom of which is many people clamoring for subD when most arent clear on what - if any - real immediate benefits it would bring.

Poser was never, and should never, be geared towards generating and rendering landscapes. there is software out there that is oriented and designed from the ground up for that purpose. there are plugins for exporting poser figures into those apps.

Poser is primarily a figure posing, animation and rendering application. most of its recent improvements have been geared towards this.  content creators out there are barely scratching the surface of what can be done with the current toolset, and people are already clamoring for more features?  if there is any gap between poser and 'professional' 3D right now it is due to two things:

1. content creators not innovating and making full use of the tools they have.  in the last ten years the average marketplace product has actually experienced a decline in quality.

2. the fear/unwillingness/laziness of the average poser user to embrace new technologies like dynamic cloth  or other advanced features of Poser - because using it involves more user intervention than simply loading a one-click pose, or takes more than 1 minute to render.

Quote - Please tell me in what way weightmapping would help me creating more realistic joints.

Nobody's saying that and nobody ever has.  You keep going back to "I know how to do this one thing this one particular way so everybody everywhere must do it just the same".  Seriously dude WE GET IT that you like modding V3/M3.  Congratulations on modding V3/M3.  Great job, awesome!

First of all, the image shown has nothing to do with joint issues weight maps are supposed to help with, so I don't know why you show it if you hate to show it.

Second - I use PMD as well, and it's a great tool. I have used weight mapped figures too, and I like that I don't have to use PMD to fix them. I can create conforming clothes for weight mapped figures without much efford, without Wardrobe Wizard or some other fancy tool, and they work quite well. And is your argument really "Poser does not need weight mapping because there is a tool you can buy to fix the joints with an external mesh editor" ?  

"Note I'm not crapping on the many great advances in newer versions of Poser, far from it, just gosh, wouldn't it be nice to have integrated subdivison too?  As a content creator you're really not interested in such a possibility yourself?"

of course i am. but not to the extent that im just going to clamour for it to be implemented right now while i already have tools at my disposal of which weve only just scratched the surface. ANY new tools are welcome - but lets not forget the fact that we were just given weightmapping, SSS, advanced lighting and dynamics improvements, etc.  so far we arent even using these to anywhere near their potential so why not focus on what we have instead of wishing for yet another feature that 95% of content creators and end users will ignore.

Indeed  the  poser user needs weight mapping
but not for Alyson & Ryan.
poser needs new figures that are real SUPER STARS

Cheers

weight mapping is a massive improvement. we arent seeing it used to its full potential yet because there arent any figures out that have topology modeled from the ground up to take full advantage of it.

before the latest Poser was released i was working on enhancing my earlier characters joints with dozens of JCMs.   i can tell you that with weight mapping the end result is much easier to accomplish in a fraction of the time. 

A weightmap can only push a vertex inside or out. (Well, you can add weightmapped bulge morphs and extra bones, but you still don't reach the granularity of a JCM)

Yes, weightmaps are superior to "raw" spherical falloff zones.

But they won't get you 100% there. You still need JCMs.

So it really doesn't matter if you need a "20%" JCM to fix an "80%" joint, or if you need a "2%" JCM to fix an "98%" weightmapped joint.

Not to mention that a conventionally fixed rig is backwards compatible to Poser 7. (And perhaps even further).

As for time used, I once actually timed it.

Took me 5 minutes to go from Poser to ZBrush fixing the shoulders and going back.

And another 5 minutes setting the JCM up with the dependency editor.(Another REALLY USEFULL NEW Poser feature)

Weightmapping is nice to have, sure.

But I still think that, if they can't have Genesis, most Poser users would rather have a set of professionally made new Poser figures with professionally made morphs and professionally made clothing.

Figures that are good enough to get support even from the "big gun" vendors.

People are vain. They want the latest greatest.

I seriously doubt that a weightmapped Antonia or a weightmapped Vicky 4 will be enough to compensate for all the cool stuff DAZ is cranking out.

V2 had no chance when V3 rolled out.

V3 had no chance against V4.

Things are moving a bit slower now, yes, but make no mistake.

Once Genesis takes up speed, it will crush everything else.

Because it gives the average user exactly what he wants.

Pre version 3, Studio was just a little freebie content viewer.

But right now, with neither true native Genesis functionality nor nor a corresponding figure of it's own, PP 2012 has no chance against Studio 4 PRO.

fixed:  "So it really doesn't matter if you need a "60%" JCM to fix a "40%" joint, or if you need a "10%" JCM to fix an "90%" weightmapped joint."

it certainly matters if you are the content creator making them.  it also matters if you are the clothing creator that has to duplicate them all in clothing as opposed to just transfering the weight maps from the base figure.  even if you are willing to put in the time, its still time you could have better spent making more content.

"Not to mention that a conventionally fixed rig is backwards compatible to Poser 7. (And perhaps even further)."

yes, that is a very valid point - and why there will always be room for products that make use of all of the new features, and those that cater to all legacy versions of Poser.

JoePublic: you contradict yourself in each one of your posts.

in your last post, you start out by arguing against weight mapping and for JCMs and legacy content creation, and then go on to say that that genesis is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  you make no sense.

I don't agree with the "PP 2012 has no chance against Studio 4 PRO" part, we will see how thing will be going. I seriously doubt that Genesis alone is a reason for a lot of people to switch to Studio. And if there is no Genesis for Poser, the market will be a lot smaller for the PA's. 

And for me, it does matter how far I can get without a JCM. It saves a lot of time.

Hmm, yes, I agree that doing things "the right way" is harder for clothing creatores.

But, if it only takes 10 minutes to create the original JCM, it shouldn't take more to create a matching one for the clothes.

As for "40%" joints. Well, yes, if you just look at the default DAZ or Poser figures.

But look at XAA's Posette, Anton's Apollo or Diogenes' Brad and standard Antonia.

A good rigger surely can push a conventional Poser joint into the 90% range.

Quote - A good rigger surely can push a conventional Poser joint into the 90% range.

limited to spherical falloff zones to satisfy legacy users?

good luck with that. we have a decades worth of figures with Fd up joints - from Daz included - that prove the contrary.

what id really like to see is an 'IF' switch added to Poser so that we could rig proper JCM setups for complex joints like the shoulder (not simple hinge joints like the knee). or slave JCMs to one another. what i mean is something like this:

a morph for R_Collar yrotate checks IF R_Collar zrotate <0 use JCM X
a morph for R_Collar yrotate checks IF R_Collar zrotate >0 use JCM Y

what im trying to describe is not possible with dependant params. feel free to prove me wrong though.

"in your last post, you start out by arguing against weight mapping and for JCMs and legacy content creation, and then go on to say that that genesis is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  you make no sense"

Weightmapping "by itself" has not much use.

But Genesis is much more than a weightmapped figure. It's a whole figure system.

I don't have a problem with weightmapping in Poser.

I have a problem with getting weightmapping but not a decent figure.

"limited to spherical falloff zones to satisfy legacy users?"

Limited to spherical falloff zones AND reverse deformation tool made JCM's.

Seriously, what's so hard to understand ?

I'd rather have Poser 9 /PP2012 would have come without weightmapping and SSS but a Genesis comparable set of figures.

It's nice to have everything, but if you have to pick and choose, I go with what has the greater appeal to the masses.

Maybe the old hands won't abandon ship, but new users ?

Having to choose between Allyson 2 and the Dregon and Vicky 5 ?

Sorry, but my money is on the V-chick.

"...what im trying to describe is not possible with dependant params. feel free to prove me wrong though."

I control certain JCMs with poses so I don't have that problem.

But I wouldn't be surprised if either ColorCurvator or Cage already found a solution for that problem you describe.

Quote - But look at XAA's Posette, Anton's Apollo or Diogenes' Brad and standard Antonia. A good rigger surely can push a conventional Poser joint into the 90% range.

and since you clearly haven't been listening Mike himself says weightmapping is a massive improvement so ...

Nothing to add to Tommy Lee Jones comment.

Mike is a great rigger, but I think he never gave traditional Poser rigging a fair chance.

He just used it because there was no alternative. Besides, some people think JCMs are "faking it" and should be avoided at all costs.

Yes, I cursed those falloff zones myself many times over the last 11 yrs, but once I had Studio 3's and later ColorCurvator's reverse deformation tools, I never bothered with an absolutely "purist" rig anymore.

I had actually planned to convert all my figures to weightmaps, but once I realized that I still had to resort to JCMs to get an absolutely perfect joint, I only use it very sporadingly.

Oh and btw, Paul: You really should tone down your trademark rudeness a bit if you adress someone else in a public forum.

It's four weeks till Christmas and this way you'll never make it off of Santa's naughty list.

:-)

What percentage of poser users do you guys think actually have the new version (P9, 2012)? 20%, 30%, higher, lower?

As far as DAZ, who the hell cares.
Like others, I downloaded DS4 and exported Genesis, unhid the morphs and played around with it for a few days in Poser. Kind of fun as a novelty, but that's about all.

I just went to the galleries and searched for V5 in first the Studio category, then the Poser. Some of the renders were pretty good, but the quantity was underwhelming to say the least.
How many V4 renders were in the galleries in the first month after release? :-)

Quote - Mike is a great rigger, but I think he never gave traditional Poser rigging a fair chance.

gotcha, Mike is a great rigger but wtf does he know, he's not an Old Spice salesman.

Quote - Oh and btw, Paul: You really should tone down your trademark rudeness a bit if you adress someone else in a public forum.

Saying YOU are dumb is not the same as saying WHAT YOU SAY is dumb (and what you say, incidentally, IS frequently dumb).

Why bless my boots, I do believe my ears are burning.

Here is an attached cube, which has two morphs: one that resizes the top square in the x direction, and one that goes in the z-direction. An additional master dial drives both morphs; it drives the x-morph for negative values, and the y-morph for positive values. So, unless there is some specific bug specifically with morphs controlled by joints, this should work (or i did not understand those IFs correctly). It uses valueKey parameters, which were not in some older version (at least they are not in the BLRender-book, so they were added somewhere after Poser 5), but it works with Poser 8. I guess with the (older) valueOpDeltaAdd-Style morphs, something should work, too.

I'll add one small comment on the whole SubD thing and then disappear.

SubDs, especially sub-dividing the entire form as DS4 proposes as best, is not the sole way to get smooth joints in a humanoid manikin.  Usually you need more geometry where the body's soft tissues can distort more in relation to its bones or where muscles might tend to bulge.   These also tend to be spots where joints offer the greatest degress of freedom such as elbows and kness.   Judicious application of additional geometry in those spots can go a long way to creating a smooth, skin-like surface deformation.

Simply solving smoothing issues by subdividing everything burns resources that could be more judiciously applied to dynamics, rendering the next frame in animation, etc.

-K

millighost: this is the problem:

to JCM a shoulder properly, you need - in the least - 6 JCMs.
shoulder up-down, down+forward, down+back / up+forward, up+back.
up-down is a simple deltaadd JCM. you can then make a forward and back JCM, but unless you are doing something magical theres no way to make forward and back JCMs that look perfect with the shoulder either up or down.

to do a proper shoulder fix you need to make one forward and back JCM for the arm up, and another separate set for the arm down.

and it needs to be rigged so that:
IF shoulder forward, and up-down dial is <0 then use JCM down+forward
IF shoulder forward, and up-down dial is >0 then use JCM up+forward
and the same for up/down+back

there actually is magic in the world:

http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=161641&sid=6f239621f48455e9ce45ef903a3e8d86

I take exception.  :)

Who is it that has been doing P6 sphere rigging like this with no JCMs at all? Hundreds of rigged P6 figures. Nothing but spheres.

Weight mapping isnt a great improvement to joint rigging?  Just wait till I get this figure weight mapped.  But I do agree with Blackhearted, a mesh designed for weight mapping will do better. This one is it is 68K polys too so plenty for morphs and it maps very well I am keeping the progress on it posted at PoserPlace.

Brad looks awesome....who were those Daz figures again? :P.

Laurie

40X 40Z

Quote -  

"Real" photorealism obviously isn't such a high priority for the average Poser/Studio user.

So why implement features that are strictly for photorealism if there are much more pressing matters ?

 

If Photorealism isn't a goal of many poser users, I would suggest that is largely in part due to all existing models being photo-unrealistic.  If your model isn't even looking right in the first place, what use is photo-realism?

I think you're wrong though, on this point.  I think a great majority of Poser Users wish they could achieve photo-real results. 

I have ALWAYS wanted more realism in Poser. Like glass. I ain't likely to get it.

I think you're wrong as well. I think the majority of Poser hobbyists crave realism ;). However, wanting it and being able to achieve it with the tools one has is two different things. I don't think you can judge by looking in the gallery. I think people are trying for realism, but are just having a hard time to get the software to work with 'em.

Laurie