Quote - > Quote - In my case I am sadly very limited as to the size of renders. Paolo suggests renders at 1200x700 which for me are too small, but the sizes I am used to render as in 3000 and up, hog my system and ended up crashing Poser and called for a reboot....

That's disappointing.  I usually render larger than that. 

What kind of system resources do you have, if you don't mind my asking?

 No problem:

Specifications are I7-2600, 3.4 GHZ, 8 GB, Win 7 64, GTX 560 Ti      PP2012

With Poser I can render big and I generally don't go below 3000 and the same image in Poser with 4000x4000 kept the system running and I could do other things, whilst with Lux all was stuck....  

 

 

 

Re reviews  

Basically Reality is just a bridge and it does what is says in the packet, converts Poser files for use in Lux. It doesn't convert everything 100 percent as I already ran into issues there, but the main issues I encounter are with Luxrender and not so much Reality and reviews from people should only speak about what Reality does and not Luxrender, which is a free program after all. In how far the file conversion plays a role in how fast or good Lux performs is a hard one to answer. 

The free bridge does as good a job but needs more tweaking whilst Reality does most for you. Generally metals and glass need adjusting...The lights it ships with a really good and give a true natural feel...but there sadly remains the fact that Luxrender will take time, resources and might not work well on your system.

Maybe it is worth experimenting with the free one, render as you like and then consider whether you want to pay for another bridge which simplifies a few steps or not. It is on sale until May 5th which gives plenty of time, and then keeping an eye on RDNA's official forum should help you making a decision as if to buy, ask a refund, etc....especially since peeps ran into all sorts of other issues linked to Reality in combination with other installed content like Octane...just my two cents...off to work  

One reason I got Reality is because I wanted to render scenes in Lux which outran the limitations of the Octane render engine. In simple scenes Reality/Lux works fine - although the conversion which Reality does, is not as good as what the Octane plugin does - but larger scenes cause problems.

There are two type of problems I have encountered: Some objects do not convert properly (errors in Lux log) and Reality seems to become unstable when a lot of materials are present - such as a crash when I make a figure invisible. If I make the scene smaller by removing items, Reality behaves better.

I have no doubt that Paolo will fix the bugs in Reality, but for now I cannot use it for the purpose I wanted to use it for.

An unbiased renderer without the power of GPU only acceleration is a no sense today.

I have both Reality and Octane plugins for Poser and I have better results with just 30 seconds with octane than 30 minutes with Lux (despite CPU 12 threads).

So we will have to wait the next Lux version with GPU only acceleration for better comparisons knowing already that a NVIDIA cards will be useless until NVIDIA decides to improve OpenCL support in their drivers.

How about ATI? Don't they offer good OpenCL support?

Quote - Specifications are I7-2600, 3.4 GHZ, 8 GB, Win 7 64, GTX 560 Ti      PP2012

With Poser I can render big and I generally don't go below 3000 and the same image in Poser with 4000x4000 kept the system running and I could do other things, whilst with Lux all was stuck....

Thanks!  I have more RAM than you, but your processor is faster.  I'm guessing this means I won't be able to render at large sizes, either.

I think I'll wait a bit.  Let them work out the bugs.  And maybe see if it's included in RDNA's annual 50% off sale.  I'd like to play with it, but I'm guessing I won't use it enough to justify the full price.

I have the OpenCL version of Luxrender installed and set it to use OpenCL in R3.  According to the stats during a render I have 8 threads on the CPU and one on the GPU.  I assume this means that it is working with OpenCL but I am not sure and don't know how to check.  Also not sure what impact it will have but I am just at the bottom looking up at this steep learning curve at the moment, but having fun.

I'd used Lux before, so I knew full well about the render times before purchasing Reality.
Worth the purchase price for the Poser bridge and shader setup features.

IMO, this is a product that would be used for that long term, detail oriented project. Not so much for getting five or more renders out in a day.

Would anyone hate me if I said most of the ones I've seen look like Poser9/2012 renders? I'm not being a bitch either. LOL. I think they do. Maybe that's a testament to how much better the newest version of Poser is compared to the former versions as applies to rendering anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Hellboy's Luxrender images were flippin fabulous and he used DS with Reality as the bridge ;).

Laurie

Quote - Would anyone hate me if I said most of the ones I've seen look like Poser9/2012 renders? I'm not being a bitch either. LOL. I think they do. Maybe that's a testament to how much better the newest version of Poser is compared to the former versions as applies to rendering anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Hellboy's Luxrender images were flippin fabulous and he used DS with Reality as the bridge ;).

Laurie

Gee could we hate you...never. Anyway I think you are right but it is early days yet and I expect the examples to improve.  Also Poser 9/2012 is capable of some stunning renders if you know what you are doing.  I remains to be seen if it is easier with those without the skills to do high quality renders easier in Poser or Luxrender.  - Just my thoughts on the matter.

This is what I'm finding, Laurie. I know that to a point, my experience with Poser Pro 2012 leads me to agree with you, and I've only used the Reality plug-in for a couple of days. However, I've got a very simple Lux render going on right now. (One figure and a mesh light. I gave up on the one I'd been working on previously.) After more than two hours of rendering, this is how it looks.

Yawn . . .

The eyelashes, in particular, look horrid!

Aww :(. I'm sorry to hear that. Seriously. Hmm...maybe it's because you have to throw out what you know about Poser and start over with Luxrender :). I can't imagine what's up with the lashes tho. I'd have to see the materials files..hehe. Not asking for em or anything...I don't need to know ;).

Laurie

To be fair, the Reality 3 plug-in does EXACTLY what it's advertised to do. There has to be, by virtue of my long experience with Poser, a rather steep learning curve to ascend in order to make my Lux renders look as good as they do in Poser Pro. But with me, these things tend to be incremental and evolutionary. Looking back at renders from two or three years ago, the lighting looks all wrong now.

So, why wouldn't the same be true of my renders with Lux?

It's just frustrating that the process takes so long without yielding results that inspire me to continue . . .

Quote - I can't imagine what's up with the lashes tho. I'd have to see the materials files..hehe. Not asking for em or anything...I don't need to know ;). Laurie

Those lashes render nicely in Poser. I don't know what the deal is in Lux. The attached image is the same character, rendered in Poser more than two years ago. Her lashes look normal in this image . . .

It could be that the mask which is used in the lux material conversion is not working properly. It is supposed to exclude lashes and eyebrows from having SSS. Maybe it does not work for the eye lashes you use

Quote - It could be that the mask which is used in the lux material conversion is not working properly. It is supposed to exclude lashes and eyebrows from having SSS. Maybe it does not work for the eye lashes you use

I saw the same thing on the render from yesterday, and I'm pretty sure the lashes are different. Would you have a clue about how I might address that issue?

Quote - Would anyone hate me if I said most of the ones I've seen look like Poser9/2012 renders? I'm not being a bitch either. LOL. I think they do. Maybe that's a testament to how much better the newest version of Poser is compared to the former versions as applies to rendering anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Hellboy's Luxrender images were flippin fabulous and he used DS with Reality as the bridge ;).

Laurie

You're right Laurie. PP 2012 does a great job with the right lights and good quality texturing combined with some maths. It is also faster for sure...I am still not sure whether I will ask for a refund. I will do more testing tomorrow with some old files....I don't tend to ask for refunds as I feel sorry for the merchant's work involved within a product, especially if it is their only income...ah well....  

Is it reasonable to ask for a refund when the product works EXACTLY as advertised?

Good luck with the refund, from what I understand all sales are final and no refund is given.

I was happy to pay for Reality. It will provide me a viable, time-saving route to using the free Lux render engine, relative to using the Pose2Lux method, which was going to involve more work on my part...

...and I'm interested to play around with other render engines.

No way I'd fork out for Octane currently. So Lux, via Reality, is an affordable alternative.

It won't replace my use of Firefly... not at present for sure. My workflow using Firefly is too established... and I'm very happy with my results from that.

Indeed, for simply rendering human figures / skin realism, I don't see Reality / Lux as offering any major advantage over what Poser can now do with SSS. Not for what I'm after.

But in other areas... e.g. caustics, through glass... or getting photo-realist results (i.e. simulating real world photography), as opposed to the more illustrative hyper-realist look I tend to shoot for with Poser, at present... I think Lux/Reality will be a great combo to have at my disposal.

As a mac user, the GPU acceleration in Lux is of major interest certainly... looking forward to seeing some further developments on that front.

Quote - > Quote - It could be that the mask which is used in the lux material conversion is not working properly. It is supposed to exclude lashes and eyebrows from having SSS. Maybe it does not work for the eye lashes you use

I saw the same thing on the render from yesterday, and I'm pretty sure the lashes are different. Would you have a clue about how I might address that issue?

Go to the face material in reality and turn the mask off. See if that makes any difference. If it does, then you have to modify the mask (or leave it off) to fit the new eyelashes.

If the mask is not there, you have to load it. I think it is described in the manual . I have not done this myself yet, I only turned it on and off to see the difference.

Lux is - like any other render engine - has its own quirks to deal with. The most difference between FF and these renders is the specularity, absorbion and scattering. They are treated differently and you have to adjust. I think Paolo does what he can, but some of it depends on the texture, specular and bump maps and cannot be automated.

I see the same type of issues in Octane. The trick is to find the optimum settings which are in your taste, save those as a preset and re-apply to other skiin sets.

You will find that texture sets are all very different and some look better with default settings as others. In Poser you compensate with light sets, in Lux you can do the same of adapt the texture colors.

I don't think anybody is really complaining about Reality, apart from the odd bug (normal in any software).

I think what is really at issue is the big hype that was leading up to the release of  Reality 3. You would be forgiven for thinking, reading the "hype", that Reality was giving you easy access to the greatest thing since sliced bread and head and shoulders above anything the Poser user has ever had access to, when in all reality (excuse the pun), similiar results can be had from Firefly.

Anybody who has seriously worked with Blender will have used LuxRender, and many will tell you, it's not a one click trip to realism.

It's great that Reality offers another solution for Poser users, but yet again I suspect many people have been sucked in by the hype, and will never achieve the scale of realism that they were told could be achieved.

Quote - I have the OpenCL version of Luxrender installed and set it to use OpenCL in R3.  According to the stats during a render I have 8 threads on the CPU and one on the GPU.  I assume this means that it is working with OpenCL but I am not sure and don't know how to check.  Also not sure what impact it will have but I am just at the bottom looking up at this steep learning curve at the moment, but having fun.

If Lux is showing 1 GPU in the render stats, that does mean that it is using OpenCL. I've experimented with GPU assisted renders, and easily get 2-3 times greater samples per second rates than with straight CPU. But what I've found so far is that the GPU assisted renders take a lot more time to clear up the fire flies, but I could be doing something wrong.

.............................................

On a different but related subject, I have always found lighting in Poser very difficult, while lighting in Carrara, DS, and Lux is easy for me. For those who struggle with Poser lights like I do, Reality 3 may make using Poser much "easier". Typically my final renders take quite while (hours), so using Lux isn't as big of an issue for me as anyone who want's/needs to have the render done in 10 minutes to an hour tops.

Lux also provides something that Poser doesn't .... caustics. For anyone who has dreamed of rendering their scenes with caustics for more realistic lighting effects on glass, fliuds, jewels, etc., Reality 3 makes this fairly easy now, and at a very reasonable price compared to some of the other options.

Laurie is pretty accurate about throwing out what you've learned for Poser when it comes to lighting and shaders with Reality/Lux. But this is basically true with any new/different 3D application/renderer. Just like with Poser (or just about any 3D application), those who are willing to put the effort in to learning it will get great results. Lux is slow, but there are people who are able to optimize their scenes and get great results with decent render speeds of 1-5 hours.

My 3D app of choice is Carrara. So tweaking mats/shaders and setting up my own lights to render "Poser" content is part of the work flow. I started using Carrara to render Poser content with Poser 4 and Carrara 3, so I'm really used to this being a part of my work flow. I also like learning new things, so for me learning to optimise Poser mats/shaders for Lux isn't a big deal - But .... your milage could vary.

I posted an image this morning in my gallery here (link in my sig line) titled "A Simple Test" that was done with **no **modifications to the mats/shaders. It's not a great render, and could easily be made much better with a little extra effort. It was just a quick test to see how well Poser SSS mats would transfer from Poser to Lux via Reality 3. I was very pleased with how well Reality handles the conversion of the mats from Poser to Lux. The render ran for 7 hours, but I'm pretty sure that I could have stoped it in around 2-3 hours - I just let it run while I slept.

From my experience with poser mats in Carrara, and what has been posted in the threads here so far, I can gaurentee that not all mats/shaders will convert so effortlessly. So anyone who is on the fence about purchasing Reality 3, keep this in mind. Shader conversion is really a crap shoot. Sometimes it works so well that the converted shaders look better than they did in the native app, sometimes they just don't work at all.

As with any purchase in the Poserverse, how happy you will/would be with Reality 3 (and LuxRender) really depends on what you want, and how you want to do it. Just like Reality 2, Reality 3 is a top notch program, does an excellent job of translating the data from Poser to Lux, has a very detailed manual, and an interface that makes editing and setting things up for Lux fairly easy. Paolo (Pret-a-3d) also seems to truley care about the quality of his products, and customer satisfaction.

IMVHO, if you want to use an unbiased render engine with Poser9/PP2012, and don't want to invest $250+ to get there, right now, Reality 3 is your best option.

Yer, I've yet to see transmapped hair look better in anything other than Poser Firefly...even in Vue Infinte it never looks quite as good as in Poser.

Here is one of mine from Lux (via Reality 2, albeit same premise)  I was really impressed with what I could do with the lighting in Lux without any postwork! (click pic for bigger)

Only postwork in this was frame and sig, I believe (was a little while ago). 

It is WAAYYYY too early to give up!  Every tool takes time to learn.  My initial Lux stuff was garbage, and I bugged Snarlygribbly to death about his Pose2Lux stuff.   I got better.  If your at it for just a portrait...then it will be an even match, but for an environment, like a kitchen with glasses, sun shining in a window...its tough to beat unbiased!

Heck, I always go back to Carrara when I need trees and stuff....but I dont use it for portraits.  Use the right tool for the right job.

(btw, I thought it did a good job on this hair, but maybe its just me :tongue2: )

Tis an excellent render, 3dOutlaw! Not much to fault with it at all ;)

I will just say one thing about unbiased renderers, and thats my thought about grain in most unbiased renderers - some people are put off by it, and I can understand why, but my view has always been to treat render engines like people used to treat different camera film types (you remember, the days before digital ;)) - each has it's own characteristic and should be treated as such, and not as a fault.

Quote - I haven't yet seen a character render in lux that is that much better than I can get in poser alone with much shorter render times. ex - this was 3 years ago and rendered in (poser only) 30 mins.

I personally don't think that Luxrender does a much better job on facial portraits than Poser Pro 2012 with the appropriate shaders and IDL. That said, I think it does better than Firefly on scenes where realistic lighting is important, especially those with reflections, or lots of metalics, glass, liquids etc.

I agree with the above comments regarding portraiture, the down side being that the majority of Poser users use it for just that reason, making portraits.

Skin material conversion by Lux (or any 3rd party renderer) is faced with the issue that material conversion will always be qualitatively inferior to that of the original in that it is only mimicking the original material. An anology would be transcoding loss with video where conversion will always result in output inferior to the original. Whether or not the loss of quality is perceptable to the human eye in a render is another matter.

Skin material shouldn't necessarily be inferior, as the same texture is being used; it would actually be better if the shader was more representitive of real skin..

One thing I noticed about the two renders I posted above is that the LUXRender image has a better dynamic range.  The reflection of the emitter in the eyes is quite realistic, whilst it is blown out in the Firefly render.....

"Would anyone hate me if I said most of the ones I've seen look like Poser9/2012 renders? I'm not being a bitch either. LOL. I think they do. Maybe that's a testament to how much better the newest version of Poser is compared to the former versions as applies to rendering anyway."................"

......"I think what is really at issue is the big hype that was leading up to the release of  Reality 3. You would be forgiven for thinking, reading the "hype", that Reality was giving you easy access to the greatest thing since sliced bread and head and shoulders above anything the Poser user has ever had access to, when in all reality (excuse the pun), similiar results can be had from Firefly."

@Laurie& Cheers

I completely Agree
the true problem IMHO is that  when you take a photographic simulator be it LUX or Maxwell etc.
and drop in a "humanoid " model that at best is "Stylized " you get the same thing you have seen from the latest version of firefly

another issue is the tendency of poser user to render single figures in a mostly  DARK& EMPTY UNIVERSE

which often gives very little opportunity for indirect bounced lighting to add to the realism.

cheers

Must Disagree here, Vray ,C4D native "AR" and MODO Does an excellent job with poser transmapped hair
here is a quickie from  MODO401

Two of the prop mesh lights, about 25 minutes render time with 7 threads, around 500 scans/pxl.
Where it really surpasses firefly is in using light emitting objects.

If it normally takes poser pro 1 hour to render your final scene, how long will that translate into Reality 3?

I'm not sure it's even possible to have that kind of correlation to say all 1 hour poser renders will take 6 hours (or whatever time length) in lux. First I'm sure that the choices you make in reality will vary from scene to scene and each setting had the potential for changing the render time. In addition where you render until you want to stop, that will also affect the render time. It's almost like asking how long will it take me to make soup if I can make spaghetti in 30 minutes.

In addition, with as new as Reality 3 is, there wouldn't be enough data to make an accurate comparison.

To skew the data even father, I accutally had a render get to poser quality in a shorter time than it took to render in poser, by like half the time.

To add complexity to this discussion, I can set up a Poser render that takes many hours to complete.  Right now, for example, I have an image rendering in Firefly that measures 1600 x 1600 pixels at 300 dpi, with separate IDL and SSS passes. I started it rendering at 6 this morning, and now, 7 and 1/2 hours later, it's still not finished. So, I'm not ready to give up on Reality just because it's slow.

There's a logic to the idea of using a particular render engine for a particular purpose. Maybe I'll use Lux for a scene involving a character immersed in water, or something along those lines.  I'm interested to see how the render engine handles water, which is particularly unrealistic in Firefly.

I know this may sound crazy, but can you use Reality 3 in a way where you're NOT going for realism?  I'm trying to avoid the scene becoming so realistic that it makes the characters look like mannequins.

Has anyone tried using reality 3 for NON-realistic renders for a more cartoony, colorful, comic style feeling?

Reminder guys, use the flags for nudity and language, even when quoting.  

Quote - Aww :(. I'm sorry to hear that. Seriously. Hmm...maybe it's because you have to throw out what you know about Poser and start over with Luxrender :). I can't imagine what's up with the lashes tho. I'd have to see the materials files..hehe. Not asking for em or anything...I don't need to know ;).

Laurie

The lashes could be an issue of "use hair mask" being unchecked. The mask prevents the SSS from making eyelashes look funky and reddish.

I really recommend that everyone read the user guide. Also, the forum over at RuntimeDNA is useful.

And I totally agree about people needing to throw out what they know about Poser when trying unbiased rendering.

Me, I took one look at Poser lighting and went "are you kidding me?" Luckily, I came across Reality, Lux, and a far more simple, intutitive and real-life way of lighting scenes.

But then I learned that many of the products out there don't look good in physics based-rendering, mostly because they were created for a more cartoony rendering style.

As a result, I became more discrminiating about the products I buy. Painted-on buttons and lacing are a pass. Very painted skin textures are also a pass. I'm going to be very honest and say that many Reality renders look like photos of plastic dolls, but they would be vastly improved by simply using better photo-based textures.

Okay, I shouldn't say "improved." Some people want the doll-photo look. It's fun for humorous stuff. Still, there's a reason why many Reality users use the bleep out of Danae's skin textures. They look effing awesome in Lux...with a little tweaking.

With DAZ's Reality, I've never once not fiddled with the textures in Reality's editor. However, I have to do it less with Reality 3. You noobs are lucky. Still, would I never expect to just load an object, light, and hit the render button because, again, most of the content out there isn't made for unbiased rendering. Now that we have Reality for Poser, I am hopeful vendors will start making products with Lux in mind.

Tl;dr: Unbiased rendering is another tool. It requires learning, and a different perspective.

If you're going for the less reasitic and more toony or comic book type, you might wanna check Freestyle. I have no experience with it whatsoever, so take that as it is. I do know however that there are much better images out there than what's in their gallery.

Laurie

Quote - I personally don't think that Luxrender does a much better job on facial portraits than Poser Pro 2012 with the appropriate shaders and IDL. That said, I think it does better than Firefly on scenes where realistic lighting is important, especially those with reflections, or lots of metalics, glass, liquids etc.

Poser Pro 2012 - it's not the tool. I admit there are some things for which I prefer Lux, but you didn't name them.

Caustics?

We all have been spoiled with BB shaders for poser. When ever I try new rendeing software, I never see anyone who approachs shaders the same way as Bill. That's a problem for me.

Well, Poser won't do caustics, but I have rarely felt I needed them. Let's be clear, though, that I do not use the loose meaning of caustic as many people use it. The specific meaning of caustic is concentration or dispersion of light due to a curved refractive surface, causing a localized modulation of the light intensity after passing through the refractive medium. Hot spots. Poser is missing, altogether, the ability to transmit light through glass to reach and illuminate other objects. (possibly coloring it) This causes me trouble. I don't care that much about focusing the light - just let it through.

Generally there are four things I run into frequently that Lux does great and Poser does poorly, even in my hands:

1. Interior lit by exterior daylight, through windows.

2. Small, hot mesh lights. (e.g. a light bulb filament)

3. Some specific glass situations (not all are bad in Poser) and I'm not talking about caustics - I'm talking about seeing through the glass and letting light through the glass. A wine glass sitting on a white table cloth will, in Poser, incorrectly render the table cloth as being in shadow of the wine glass. You have to use transparency instead, and that ruins the illusion.

4. Overall a better, more accurate handling of bounced light so any situation where that is a significant factor in the light - interiors, corners, crevices.

There is also the fact that so often Firefly will do a credible job of bounced lighting, but there are so many artifacts I just can't use the render.

For architectural, glass and metal Luxrender is quite awesome ;).

Laurie

I was going to argue that Poser metal is fine. But then I remembered I can't do anisotropic reflections yet in Firefly.

Example: brushed aluminum.

Laurie there's nothing wrong with your jewelry in Poser. So it's not fair to say it can't do metal and shiny things.

But I see something here that Lux cannot do AT ALL that Poser does brilliantly. Can you spot it?

Use the BagginsBill Environment Sphere?

No it can use the sphere, I tried, made it a mesh light. I haven't used Reality much yet, but I guessing it's smoothing?

Oh well, not sure why someone would do that, but it was more of a joke. :tongue1: It's late, I've had a good laugh with this comment, "...and Poser does poorly, even in my hands." :lol: , and its time for bed.

Cheers, and happy rendering! 

motion blur

Spinning wheels. Camera in motion as is the truck.