Hello, everyone.

The reason I'm here on this rare occassion is because I need to make a decision. A costly decision. I feel however, that it may be worth the investment so before I go through with it. I just need some advice. 

Well, right now I've been using Poser Pro 2012 for a good while. It's nice to have all its new features that I didn't have with Poser 7 which I was using for at least 3 years before the switch to Pro 2012. At any rate, firefly is not that bad of a rendering engine. I've seen a few people render in poser Pro 2012 with exceptional results. I was never quite sure if they were using IBL or just regular lights like spot lights, point light, etc. 

Still I understand that lights is what can make or break an art piece. I was wondering however, if Lux would be a much better choice to go with. Does it calculate lighting and shadows better than firefly? How well does it handle lights compared to firefly?

My problem with getting good quality renders in Poser has a lot to do with not knowing where the lights should be, or how they should be edited in the material room to improve the quality. I've tried the whole environmentsphere trick and that didn't really do much. Sometimes I'm trying to figure out if a light source should be closer to a figure, or further away from them for quality. There have been few occassions where the figures will render nicely, but the environment would look dull or shadows had a splooch effect. Some shadows looked too harsh to even be believable. So I'd try to just reduce shadows from 1000 down to 500 or sometimes 600.

Most of my life as a poser user. I would just play around with lights until I would get the results. These days I can't really afford to waste the time guessing. So I put up an image I did with Sub surface turned on and Indirect lighting. It looks okay, but still not as good as I'd like it to be. I seen some vids of Lux in action, some with Octane too. Both do a fine job of making renders look great. And most of the artists have claimed they didn't even do any post working in Photoshop to improve the lighting either. However, anyone that uses firefly has been guilty of fine tuning the lights professionally in Photoshop for better quality. One fine example is this gentlemen right here who I've spoke to on DA about his work. 

http://cyberdynestudio4.deviantart.com/art/Reversal-392145786

I have for ages been asking him how did he get his art to have such a strong Photo-real look to it. And when he told me that he did it in Poser Pro 2012. I was shocked...I was never able to get my renders to come anywhere close to that in Poser Pro 2012 no matter what I did. But he was always nice about it going into detail. He does a little post work. Not sure if he explained that his post working was done on the lighting or just fixing small things like poke throughs, etc..Which can be done with the Morph tool if your careful with using it.

So I always wanted to know if I should go with Lux for better quality or is there any technique I could be learning or should know about to get the most power out of Firefly's engine. I've seen some great work done with firefly, so I know it can do justice if one could just understand what type of lights too use, whether or not I should make use of gamma correction in Poser Poser, etc. Again I know a guy that uses Octane and doesn't post work anything. But setting up the lights in Octane still looks a little tricky judging from what I've seen on Youtube. So I'm assuming that's the pay off of getting high quality art even though it's nowhere near as complex as trying to do it in Maya or XSI. 

Obviuosly it is not a decision someone can make for you so I guess it is best to give you some information and let you decide.  For a start the lights in Lux are very different from Poser in that they emulate the light of the real world.  If you come from a photography background you may find that lighting in Luxrender suits you, others will may not take to it so easily.

Lux takes a long time to render but on the plus side you can make some lighting and film response changes on the fly and see them reflected as Lux renders.  Again this is built around photography with changes being made to apetures and film speed as well as lights.  One feature I really do love is the ability to suspend a render and start it days or weeks later from where it left off.  This is useful in the sense that the render is never finished in the Firefly sense and you stop at the point you are happy with it.

The problem I have with Reality is that, while it makes a very good job of guessing the material or texture from Poser figures and props, it is limited.  Lux has the ablilty to create some stunning textures but it is by no means simple and porting a scene from Poser to Lux, even with Reality, can take a fair amount of time. 

Having purchased Reality I do use it for some special renders but a good 90% of my renders are still done in Poser.

That's my personal experience for what it is worth but I hope others who have used it far more will chip in so that can get a balanced view before you let go of your cash.

I was debating the same thing a few months ago but cannot afford Octane right now and the render times I see people posting for Lux are also prohibitive to me so I prefer Firefly especially with Bagginsbill's environment sphere which is free:  https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/free-stuff/environment-sphere  If you don't know about it make sure you check all the links he gives.

Some other lights I've found very useful:  http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=89899

http://www.runtimedna.com/SunLIGHT.html

I'd say play with these to see if you can get the results you'd like.   Lux and Octane will still be available :)

Firefly can definitely do images like those you linked to, without postwork. It can do better.

Things that make renders better in Firefly:

1. Gamma correction

2. Indirect lighting

3. Good use of direct lights or emitters when needed

4. Good material shaders

5. Subservice scattering

6. Render settings

Unfortunately, optimizing all these things is not a quick and easy skill to learn.

The best way to learn to light a scene is to take a very simple, stripped down scene, perhaps with no textures, and no figures (just primitives), and just play with lighting, doing tons (hundreds and hundreds) of test renders. Because the scene is very basic, it will render very quickly. Because you are adjusting the lights yourself, you will learn what works and can apply the lessons to other scenes.

If you want a quick way to improve your lighting, then IDL Studio 2 at RDNA (for indoor shots), or Sunlight at the same place (for outdoor shots) will help.

But even with the best lighting in the world, if your materials shaders are terrible, you'll still be missing a big part of the equation.

Gamma correction and using Snarlygribbly's Scenefixer script can help with some, scratch that, most of the problems. His EZskin2 will make SSS on skin look divine. Paying attention to the shader threads in this forum and at RDNA can help tremendously with others.

Render settings depend on what's in your scene, how fast your machine is, and how quickly you want to render something.

---

Should you use Reality?

There's a learning curve with Reality as well, but I get the impression that it's not as steep as with Firefly. 

But you'll pay for that ease of use with greatly slowed down renders.

I guess you need to make the decision today, while Reality is still on sale. Me, I'd buy it while it was on sale, just because it may be a good tool to have in the toolbox, and the price is good. That said, I have Reality already, but I don't actually use it because I'm too impatient to wait for a render. :)

EDIT: Gack! Reality is not on sale any more. Scratch all that. I'd wait until it was on sale again. :)

Thanks everyone for the replies. To the first post, it is not a matter of me deciding for myself. I need to first know if someone else has used it, then if they tell me their experiences with it. Perhaps I can make a decision based on what they think the product is capable of.Because I've seen Lux in action, and it looks great. But I've also seen Fire Fly in action too, and it can also get good results when done right.

I also had to ask because of money reasons. I've heard that Lux/Reality 3 does take awhile to render. I always thought that had something to do with settings, memory, or the type of computer that was using it.I've seen people get quick renders on youtube with it. Granted I don't mind using Firefly. I just wish I understood how to use the Environment sphere to reflect the lights. I've tried using it many times and have never gotten the results people claim that it can get. And I've done plenty of renders on Deviant Art without the use of Gamma Correction and managed to get half decent results. So I guess I'll just keep doing retries until I get something right.

A learning curve doesn't really bother me as long as I can grasps the concepts quick. For instance if someone said "Position a Point Light here, and Put the spot light there." Then that would be easy to keep in mind. I've used light sets that would come with 15 or more lights just to get the look that is advertised. And I'm thinking "No way" I don't want to figure out what each of those lights do and half the time their not even positioned in the right spots to give me the results. That means I have to adjust their position. All 20 or so lights. And that takes up a lot of time when you're just guessing versus actually knowing where to position all of those lights.

One question I've always had about IBL is does it matter which direction the three arrows within the circle are pointing? I usually point the arrows facing the figure.

"One question I've always had about IBL is does it matter which direction the three arrows within the circle are pointing? I usually point the arrows facing the figure."

Nope.  In Poser, with IBL, it doesnt matter.

"I also had to ask because of money reasons. I've heard that Lux/Reality 3 does take awhile to render."

That's an understatement.  Luxrender is a physically accurate, complex lighting render engine, but it's not optimized for speed.  Even with GPU accelleration, it's a very poor performer.  It will take hours or days to render a scene, but the results, if done right, can be as realistic as a photograph.  I've seen Luxrender renders that were indistinguishable from reality.  I've only seen a handful of the best Poser renders that I could say that about, and most of those had a lot of postwork done in Photoshop to make it so.  You can achieve photorealism in Luxrender without as much postwork.  I've read articles about how "unbiased", physically accurate render engines are cutting down on the amount of post production studios are having to do to achieve film-quality results, so that's saying something.  Of course, most of those studios aren't using Luxrender, but Arnold and other unbiased physical render engines in their pipelines.

I don't think you've achieved the full capacity of what is possible in Firefly, just judging by your statements in this thread.  So I think it would be wise to save your money at this point.  The time you'd save in setting up a scene for photorealistic results (if any) will be lost in render time.

If you want much faster render results, but still achieve photorealistic light, like in Luxrender, then it's going to cost a lot of money.  You'd need to invest in a higher end Nvidia graphics card, and possibly something like the Octane render engine.  It won't be a cheap solution, unless you already have a good Nvidia card, but it's actually faster than Firefly, and as good as Luxrender.  For now, I would suggest testing Luxrender out yourself with some sample renders on your machine, as there is also a free exporter for it that's ok for testing the engine with Poser.

I use both Reality/Lux and Octane. I find lighting much easier for both than in Poser, but I have always struggled with lighting in Poser. The "style". for lack of a better term, of my renders is a lot different than the render you referenced at DA, so you should keep that in mind when reading my comments (pleae take a quick look at my gallery here to ensure that my renders fit with your ultimate goal). I also do very little, if any, post work on my renders, other than adding the signature.

Regardless of renderer used, you need good materials that match/work well with your lighting. Most pre-made light sets for Poser use a lot of lights, If using IDL with Firefly, a standard 3 point light setup should work well, but that's comming from someone who struggles with lighting in Firefly.

Lighting in either Lux or Octane is very straight forward. You can use standard studio (as in photo studio or film studio) lighting techniques to easily get great lighting. Using HDR images for lighting in either is also very simple to setup/use, IMHO much easier than with Poser. Reality does a great job of converting materials/shaders from Poser to Lux, but you will still need to do some adjustment to get the best results (it's best stay away from the very complex SSS shaders for the best conversion). The same is true for Octane. With both, the more complex the scene, lighting, and shaders, the longer your renders will take. Rendering via Lux will be slower than with Poser, but after you get a good understanding of the lighting and materials/shaders in with Reality/Lux, setup will take less time and you will get consistant predictable results.

Octane is extremely fast for an unbiased renderer. For me, things like refelctions, caustics (which Firefly doesn't have), realistic liquids, gems, etc. are much easier to set up in both Lux and Octane than with Firefly. Where Octane really improves workflow is the near realtime feedback for final render results of any adjustments in lighting, shaders, poses, and object placement. Using Octane has reduced the time it takes for me to setup a render dramatically. With Octane, my final renders typically run 1-2 hours (at over 3,000 pixel resolutions), with Reality/Lux it's usually 12-24 hours (1800-2400 pixel resolutions).

There is a free demo for Octane with the Poser Plugin. If your interested in it, you should definitely give it a test run first to see if it will meet your needs (that is what I did, though I ended up getting the plugin for DS to save a little money, the Poser Plugin is outstanding and I hope to get it in the next year). Many of the concepts for lighting and shaders between Octane and Lux are very similar, so it make using both much easier. There are some limitations to Octane, like being limited to the RAM available on your video card, and a maximum number of texture "slots", that makes rendering large, complex scenes in Octane a bit more difficult. That is why I find having both Reality/Lux and Octane beneficial. If I need to do a scene that won't fit on my GPU, then I can use Lux (though I also use Carrara, and will typically use Carrara for big scenes because it is faster than Lux, and I can get fantastic results).

Bottom line, it really comes down to personal preferences, and what you really want to do. I can honestly say that even though Octane is rather costly, I haven't had any buyers remorse at all, it's one of the best 3D investments I've made. The same is true for Reality, I own both the Poser and DS versions, and am glad I have them, though I don't use them much since getting Octane. But, as you can see from the Poser gallery here, people who have invested the time and effort to really learn how to get the most out of Firefly, can get some outstanding results from it as well.

I hope this helps a bit. 

Quote - Thanks everyone for the replies. To the first post, it is not a matter of me deciding for myself. I need to first know if someone else has used it, then if they tell me their experiences with it. Perhaps I can make a decision based on what they think the product is capable of.Because I've seen Lux in action, and it looks great. But I've also seen Fire Fly in action too, and it can also get good results when done right.

 

I did not explain myself very well, nothing new in that.  I was not suggesting anyone makes a decision for you and it is a big decision, both in money and time.  I was struggling with how to answer your question objectively and not adding my own bias.

For me I do occasionally use Reality and thus Lux but having purchased Reality I do not use it as much as I expected.  For me it is the time taken to get the materials right which are the issues, it seems a bit like double handing as I spend a good deal of time making the materials work in Poser.

I have also found as I play with lights in Poser that I am more and more comfortable with the lights.  Recently I have started moving away from the constant setting and using the inverse square and inverse linear.  This really does help to add atmosphere to some renders.  I think I have improved my lighting skills in Poser but I am also sure I have a lot more to learn.

From a personal point of view I do think it is worth sticking with Gamma Correction.  I used to get renders I was happy with but they were all individually tweaked.  With GC I find that the quality is more consistant but it does mean you have to reduce your lighting for it to work.  Most lights sets are set too high by default and, if you are using light sets, you really want some built for use in Poser 2012 or 2014 as the lights are very different.

Finally, please keep in mind my aim in my renders is not to produce a photo realistic result.  A larger proportion of my renders are Sci-Fi based which i want to be believeable rather than photo realistic.

There is no "put a point light here" and "put a spotlight there" that will work. Lights should reflect what is in your scene.

20 is far too many. 4 or less is my rule. I often use no more than 1 or 2. The only exception is if my scene has 20 actual sources of light... for example... 20 candles.

IBL and IDL are two different concepts. When you use the "environment sphere", you must use IDL, and you probably need a material that has some ambient value greater than 0, otherwise it's not going to have the effect you expect.

Gamma correction is important, but not crucial. However, if you're looking for the best results with IDL, then I'd recommend learning about it. And if you're not going to render with it, you will probably have to do postwork to make up for that -- or render with lights that are too bright, causing ugly bloom. 

But again, no one can give you specific answers because every single scene is different and there is no one size fits all solution.

Hence my suggestion that you experiment with your own lights in a very stripped down scene. Use IDL. Use raytraced shadows. Enable those raytraced shadows on your lights, and start with 1 single light. Adjust the intensities. Adjust the shadow blur radius. Move the light around. Change from an infinite to a spot to a point light.

Just by doing that you'll have learned a lot. You can make some great renders with 1 single light plus IDL.

Experiment with the environment sphere. Put different materials on it. Put a backdrop on it. Adjust the ambient value up or down. See what happens.

Quote - There is no "put a point light here" and "put a spotlight there" that will work. Lights should reflect what is in your scene.

I disagree with this. Where lights are put in a scene does effect how they will render. I've once placed spot lights too close and ended up with a fully dark blacked out scene, but then when pulled out that effect is gone.I'm assuming it has a lot to do with how the pre-set lights were made. I remember buying a set of Spot lights and they were all facing way down toward the floor. So once I clicked rendered, my scene was totally black. Point lights are usually used on things like candles, lamps, etc.

Also where lights are place can have an effect on where the shadows will appear too. So it definately does matter where the lights are.

 I've bought a few IBL's off Runtime DNA and they look fantastic. Though you're right about how often the brightness can be jacked up too high. Some are also guilty of being too low to where you can't see anything.  I only ask these questions because I'm just interested to know how the lights work. Never mind telling me that the lights have to reflect lighting in real life. I once asked a guy about that and the dude wrote me a 1000 page essay about it and I swear I was lost on lighting.

Unfortunately someone also told me that graphic cards have no effect on how the scene will render. It will only effect the preview. Not sure how true that is, but I do recall asking someone about whether or not graphic cards will improve the render when it comes down to Poser's firefly that is. Granted someone also said something about scifi and Photo-real. I guess I didn't explain that well enough. When I said Photo-Real, I was talking about how 3D art has that realistic effect. So the theme whether it's sci fi, Horror, etc. Doesn't really matter. Usually I just say "A Realistic effect" or I'll use an example like Final Fantasy Advent Children which has a Photo-Realistic art style have a solid realism look and feel. I never quite understood what the hell people meant by Photo-Real. I just took the concept of "Real" and figured they meant realism to where the art looks and reflects reality itself to where everything in the scene looks like it was actually taken by a real camera rather than rendered by a computer.

Whatever the case, I'll take what little advice I've recieved from here and see what I can do. I guess these days I'm just not very patient enough to do a lot of work for results since time is not my best friend. And I still haven't a clue with post working techniques in Photoshop. I know it does take a lot of steps though for that type of thing. But I like to cut down on certain things. I spend a lot more time writing stories for my art versus all the other stuff. I will take a look around everyone's gallery that replied to me on here. I am not that active here anymore.

I've also spent money on much more priceri things than a new Renderer. Last time Reality 3 was $19.99 yet Stonemasons environments cost close to $40.00 a piece. Because of that alone, I simply don't even bother buying his environments. A lot of work went into them. But goddamn their extremely expensive compared to other rooms I've bought that looked just as good. For instance Ironman she makes very damn good environments, yet their very cheap and can still get the same quality that StoneMason environments get. Even a building by itself can cost you a lot if it's made by Mason. I remember him selling a cool Mech I wanted, the thing was $30 lol. But he does make some really neat Sci Fi rooms I'll give him that. I own at least two of them including one jungle outdoor enviromment I got from him that was $30.

Thank you everyone.

I agree with everything Moriador is telling you. It mimics my own workflow.

The great Director Ingmar Bergman, a man well known as a pioneer in realistic lighting was quoted as saying: "Look at the scene. If there should be light coming from something, then make sure there is light coming from there." 

What his concepts translate to in Poser are quite simple.

Is it day outside? Then light should be coming in through a window. If it is direct light, put a light there. If indirect, but BB's Envdome there to provide illumination.

Is there a lit lamp or light fixture in the room? If so, they need lights to provide the illumination you would expect from those sources.

It really is that simple.

BB also has a light meter in his free stuff that makes setting overall light levels a breeze.

I, persoanally, ALWAYS use IDL. It's just that much more realistic than the other schemes imho.

As to Lux and Octane, for me, the deal breaker is that Poser shaders do not accurately translate into the other render environments. Nor should we EXPECT them to! They are separate projects. I'm not willing to lose the power of the new rendering options in firefly for some modest quality gain in another platform. I'm with the group who says you are not going to get results in those other systems that you can't get by learning the nuances of firefly. Certainly not without a speed trade-off. I've put my time into doing the hard work tweaking firefly, but that's me. Your mileage may vary.

Quote - As to Lux and Octane, for me, the deal breaker is that Poser shaders do not accurately translate into the other render environments. Nor should we EXPECT them to! They are separate projects. I'm not willing to lose the power of the new rendering options in firefly for some modest quality gain in another platform. I'm with the group who says you are not going to get results in those other systems that you can't get by learning the nuances of firefly. Certainly not without a speed trade-off. I've put my time into doing the hard work tweaking firefly, but that's me. Your mileage may vary.

 

That really describes well the point I am at although I do admit I came to that point after I had purchased Reality 3.  There is no doubt that Luxrender can supply very good rendors and that Reality 3 makes it easier to use but the downside is the time taken to get that quality.  It is not just a question of render times but the time spent getting the textures right.

I not expecting a one click solution but I have decided that my time spent improving my skills with Poser lights is the quickest way to get to where I want to be.  I also know I am no where near the limits of what Poser lighting and Firefly can do.

The point about the graphics card used to be true and probably is for the majority of Poser users as the preview is done by the graphics card but the render is done by the CPU.  I know Octane uses the GPU and Luxrender had the option to use the GPU or CPU, I did try the GPU when I first started using Reality 3 but after it consistantly 'blue screened' my system so I gave up.  Not blaming Reality 3 mind, probably just a limitation of my system.

Quote - I'm not willing to lose the power of the new rendering options in firefly for some modest quality gain in another platform. I'm with the group who says you are not going to get results in those other systems that you can't get by learning the nuances of firefly.

Very true - to a point, the point being caustics. Firefly doesn't do caustics, and has a pretty odd way to do IOR as I recall. You can fake it to some degree, but you will either spend a lot of additional setup time adding the lights in "just the right places", carefully add the effecs in post, or end up with a render right in the middle of Uncanny Valley. True, this isn't a big issue for most renders, but for things like jewels, glass, many liquids, and of course rendering Vicky in a tomb with a crystal skull, caustics can really make a difference.

For example, note the caustics in the cystals in this render:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2323823

The concentrated light on the face of the figure in the crystal is from the gathering of refracted light in that area. Also look at the subtle light "highlights" at and around the base of the crystal, these subtle effects that add to the realism simply aren't possible in Firefly (but can be faked to a certain degree with additional lights and gel shaders for the lights).

Dusty,

Quite true... except... I can't remember the last time I tried to do anything remotely resembling this effect.

For me, not with the time and trouble.

As I stated above... your mileage may vary (and obviously does!) 

Quote - Dusty,

Quite true... except... I can't remember the last time I tried to do anything remotely resembling this effect.

For me, not with the time and trouble.

As I stated above... your mileage may vary (and obviously does!) 

Quite right!

Somehow in my ramblings I forgot to add in that if you don't need/want caustics, Firefly can  do everything you need. Regardless of the renderer used, you will need to learn how to optimise your materials and lighting for your image. One big advantage to using Firefly is that with a lot of the available content, most of the work has already been done for you.

Quote - Quite right! Somehow in my ramblings I forgot to add in that if you don't need/want caustics, Firefly can  do everything you need. Regardless of the renderer used, you will need to learn how to optimise your materials and lighting for your image. One big advantage to using Firefly is that with a lot of the available content, most of the work has already been done for you.

I might disagree here.  The presets that come with Firefly, even now, are very outdated, and intended for 3 point lighting, and often don't look good with IDL or global lighting.  The bumps and colors get washed out, and the materials themselves don't look realistic to begin with.  Unless you are bagginsbill, or have all the shaders he puts out there, you've got to be a mathemetician to get realistic, complex materials from Firefly.  Octane actually has more usable preset materials than Poser, and they are all very realistic right out of the box, with ANY lighting situation.

You really have to fight with Firefly to render without artifacts, or blotchiness, at super-high settings, and dense objects.  The most realistic results I've ever seen in CG are being done with the newer render technologies, and unbiased render engines.  There's just no comparison in accuracy and quality.  I think Luxrender is a bad example of this type of rendering genre, because it's the slowest render engine of it's kind.  It may also be the most accurate, but that's debateable.

Point is, unless you require ultra high-end realism from your renders, for film or print, then you should really consider not spending the money.  Because you don't need to.  The example of realism indicated by the OP in this thread doesn't seem extraordinary to me (no offense to the artist of course), so Firefly could easily achieve that result.  If that's the level the OP is looking for, the tools to get it are already on his system in Firefly.  However, if true photorealism is the goal, where someone inexperienced in CG might not know the difference between the render and reality, then Octane or Luxrender are the tools to look at.

Quote - > Quote - There is no "put a point light here" and "put a spotlight there" that will work. Lights should reflect what is in your scene.

I disagree with this. Where lights are put in a scene does effect how they will render. I've once placed spot lights too close and ended up with a fully dark blacked out scene, but then when pulled out that effect is gone.I'm assuming it has a lot to do with how the pre-set lights were made. I remember buying a set of Spot lights and they were all facing way down toward the floor. So once I clicked rendered, my scene was totally black. Point lights are usually used on things like candles, lamps, etc.

Also where lights are place can have an effect on where the shadows will appear too. So it definately does matter where the lights are.

LOL. OF COURSE where lights are put in a scene affects how it will render! I'm not saying they won't. I am saying they WILL. 

That is why no one can tell you where to put your lights. Because we can't see your scene and how the lights will affect it. That's all I was saying. That YOU have to be the one to experiment with lighting and that no one else can do it for you. Because no one else has your scene.

Quote - Point is, unless you require ultra high-end realism from your renders, for film or print, then you should really consider not spending the money.  Because you don't need to.  The example of realism indicated by the OP in this thread doesn't seem extraordinary to me (no offense to the artist of course), so Firefly could easily achieve that result.  If that's the level the OP is looking for, the tools to get it are already on his system in Firefly.  However, if true photorealism is the goal, where someone inexperienced in CG might not know the difference between the render and reality, then Octane or Luxrender are the tools to look at.

Yes, exactly. The examples given by the OP do look to me like they use IDL, so that effect probably won't be possible without learning how IDL works. But Firefly certainly has the ability to reproduce those effects, and with some material shader changes, Firefly could produce more realism than shown in those examples.

Actual photorealism needs an unbiased renderer, as you point out.

The question is, is the time it will take to learn to produce near-realism in Firefly worth it for the render time reductions, or would the OP be better off buying Reality and having longer render times, but less work learning to set up the scene?

Me, I chose to use Firefly because once you've learned to set up and light a scene and fix materials, you've learned, and you don't need to learn again (until Poser introduces a new render engine, that is).

But if someone really just cannot get a handle on how to light scenes in Poser no matter how hard they try, then using Reality is probably a very good idea.

Quote - It really is that simple.

BB also has a light meter in his free stuff that makes setting overall light levels a breeze.

I, persoanally, ALWAYS use IDL. It's just that much more realistic than the other schemes imho.

As to Lux and Octane, for me, the deal breaker is that Poser shaders do not accurately translate into the other render environments. Nor should we EXPECT them to! They are separate projects. I'm not willing to lose the power of the new rendering options in firefly for some modest quality gain in another platform. I'm with the group who says you are not going to get results in those other systems that you can't get by learning the nuances of firefly. Certainly not without a speed trade-off. I've put my time into doing the hard work tweaking firefly, but that's me. Your mileage may vary.

Totally!

I forgot about the light meter. It's a wonderful prop!

"Put my time in" -- yes, that's it exactly. The concepts are simple. The execution takes some finesse, though, and it's not something you pick up in a day.

I still don't understand the material room as well as I'd like, but fortunately we have brilliant minds here willing to help us. :)

> Quote -> Quote - Quite right!Somehow in my ramblings I forgot to add in that if you don't need/want caustics, Firefly can  do everything you need. Regardless of the renderer used, you will need to learn how to optimise your materials and lighting for your image. One big advantage to using Firefly is that with a lot of the available content, most of the work has already been done for you. > > I might disagree here.  The presets that come with Firefly, even now, are very outdated, and intended for 3 point lighting, and often don't look good with IDL or global lighting.  The bumps and colors get washed out, and the materials themselves don't look realistic to begin with.  Unless you are bagginsbill, or have all the shaders he puts out there, you've got to be a mathemetician to get realistic, complex materials from Firefly.  Octane actually has more usable preset materials than Poser, and they are all very realistic right out of the box, with ANY lighting situation. > > You really have to fight with Firefly to render without artifacts, or blotchiness, at super-high settings, and dense objects.  The most realistic results I've ever seen in CG are being done with the newer render technologies, and unbiased render engines.  There's just no comparison in accuracy and quality.  I think Luxrender is a bad example of this type of rendering genre, because it's the slowest render engine of it's kind.  It may also be the most accurate, but that's debateable. > > Point is, unless you require ultra high-end realism from your renders, for film or print, then you should really consider not spending the money.  Because you don't need to.  The example of realism indicated by the OP in this thread doesn't seem extraordinary to me (no offense to the artist of course), so Firefly could easily achieve that result.  If that's the level the OP is looking for, the tools to get it are already on his system in Firefly.  However, if true photorealism is the goal, where someone inexperienced in CG might not know the difference between the render and reality, then Octane or Luxrender are the tools to look at.

Well, ummm, yes, I think. I struggle with getting good results with Poser, and have always attributed it to my lack of knowledge of Firefly, because there are people that seem to easily get good results with Firefly. But it is easy for me to get good results with DS, Carrara, Lux, and Octane. However, I still dont think all the blame can be placed on Poser/Firefly, because I haven't really ever taken the time to fully understand/learn it. The other renderers seem more intuitive to me, and much easier to get results I like.

I am always amazed when people seem to have difficulty with some of the basic funtions of the other renderer options for DAZ/Poser content, because they are so intuitive for me. But this does reinforce the idea that we all think differently, and different people respond to different software workflows differently.

That being said, I've had Octane for about 9 months now, and am still extremely happy with it (and I use it on a laptop). IMHO, the quality of my renders has improved with Octane, partially because it is a high quality renderer, and partly because of the fantastic interactive nature of Octane. Getting almost immediate feedback showing the results of your changes encourages tweaking and experimentation with your materials and lights. I like the results I get with Lux, but Octane makes it sooo much easier and faster that I don't use Reality/Lux much any more (but I still use it more than Firefly).

The material/shader presets that come with Octane are fantastic. For the attached image I used a lot of custom shaders based on Octane preset shaders. This render was just a render I did for fun to participate in a contest, and to test the capabilities of Octane (I'm sure this could have also been done with great results in Poser/Firefly as well - but this was only my 3rd or 4th finished render with Octane). It is lit with a HDR, no other lights, and has a lot of reflective materials. If someone wants to push the limits of realistic looking 3d rendering, Octane can definitely be an exellent choice, if you have the proper hardware, and can live within the limitations of GPU only rendering, and can afford it. 

For reference, this was my first completed render with Octane. Admitedly, it's not a jaw dropping render, but it's pretty good for a first render. This is just to illustrate my point that for me, it really is quite intuitive. There is a bit of a learning curve, but the Live DB materials can really help figure out the shader system quickly.

Quote - But this does reinforce the idea that we all think differently, and different people respond to different software workflows differently.

Yes, I think that's the crux of it.

And those octane renders do look very nice indeed. I would SOOO try octane out if I had the right equipment for it.

Reality is for anyone interested in creating photorealistic 3D art using physically accurate materials based on real-world properties.  I've used Reality 3 exclusively since it was released last year.

The single biggest advantage it offers over Firefly is being able to create and edit physically accurate materials with just a few clicks instead of spending months or years learning how to master Poser's Material Room to achieve similar effects.

In other words, imagine bagginsbill's knowledge and experience programmed into a $30 plugin, and you've got Reality.

> Quote - Reality is for anyone interested in creating photorealistic 3D art using physically accurate materials based on real-world properties.  I've used Reality 3 exclusively since it was released last year. > > The single biggest advantage it offers over Firefly is being able to create and edit physically accurate materials with just a few clicks instead of spending months or years learning how to master Poser's Material Room to achieve similar effects. > > In other words, imagine bagginsbill's knowledge and experience programmed into a $30 plugin, and you've got Reality.

Very well said. It really is easy to get great materials quickly with Reality. Liquids, glass, water, metals, etc. that take some real knowledge in Poser's material room are super simple with Reality (Octane too).  Yes, rendering in Lux can be slow, but the results being worth the wait all depends on your ultimate goal. Until I can get the Octane plugin for Poser, my main renderer with Poser will be Reality/Lux. I would rather wait for the computer do the work, than spend extra time trying to figure out the shaders and lighting in Poser.

There is another advantage for me in that I have plugins for Lux for Poser, DS, and Carrara. This means that I can use one common render engine and shader system in all three applications. No more trying to rember how to do things in each separate applications shader and lighting system. Well, to be honest, I don't use Lux much with Carrara, mostly because Carrara's lighting and shader system is drop dead simple for me now (and I can easily get fantastic results and faster renders with Carrara), but this is a big help for Poser/DS.

I hope to do the same with Octane. Which will mean great renders and great speeds with the same shader/lighting system in all three applications.

IMHO, Reality3 for Poser is a real bargain. I should have given Reality/Lux a bit more attention above. So you don't have to wade through my gallery to see what was done with Reality/Lux, the attached image was my first real render with Reality3/Lux (I did do a quick test render prior to this one). This was easily the best render I had ever produced using "Poser". Again, it's not a jaw dropping render by any means, and I'm definitely no Reality/Lux guru. But I do think it shows what the average Poser user could quickly accomplish using Reality/Lux. Reading the users guide first, before trying to use it, is the best way to go to get quick results.

Another advantage to using Reality/Lux is that a lot of what you learn, especially lighting, can easily be transfered to Octane, should you decide to move to it at a later date.

"Look at the scene. If there should be light coming from something, then make sure there is light coming from there."*

Then Ingmar Bergman is wise!

I used to have lengthy conversations with my good friend, Rashad Carter, on the DAZ Bryce forum about that very thing.  The trick for simulating realism is simple; do what is there in real life, not what isn't.  The conversation often popped up when comparing bounced light algorithms to using area lights dotted around the scene.

Area lights aren't floating around a room in real life, so using them in  a scene will never be as convincing as using bounced light algorithms such as Radiosity, IBL, or TA.  In the end I think he agreed, but man, it took a while!  So yup, Reality 3 is cool in that it lets you work with a renderer designed to simulate the light interactions that happen in real-life.

Not only that, I think Paolo is very generous with his pricing, it's not like you have anything to loose by giving Reality 3 a go.

Quote - Still I understand that lights is what can make or break an art piece. I was wondering however, if Lux would be a much better choice to go with. Does it calculate lighting and shadows better than firefly? How well does it handle lights compared to firefly? My problem with getting good quality renders in Poser has a lot to do with not knowing where the lights should be, or how they should be edited in the material room to improve the quality. I've tried the whole environmentsphere trick and that didn't really do much. Sometimes I'm trying to figure out if a light source should be closer to a figure, or further away from them for quality. There have been few occassions where the figures will render nicely, but the environment would look dull or shadows had a splooch effect. Some shadows looked too harsh to even be believable. So I'd try to just reduce shadows from 1000 down to 500 or sometimes 600. 

Lux is an unbiased render engine, it will calculate physically accurate lighting, Firefly is baised which is why using more than three lights in a scene can be a common thing. Fortunately for Poser, IDL solves many problems but it still cannot compare to physically correct lighting.

I'm an artist and photographer so lighting has always been fundamental to everything I do, this didn't always translate to Poser because lighting in Poser doesn't work the way it does in IRL. I discovered Reality and Lux and everything changed because instead of fooling around with lights and hoping that something would work, I setup my portrait scenes lighting just the way I would if I were taking a portrait of someone and it just works because that's what an unbiased render engine does.

If you're unsure of where lights would go in Poser, Lux should be a breeze since all you have to do is turn on a light in your room and you you've got 1000 examples.

Hi there

 

Poser Pro render firefly will and can make exceptional renders,but as above previous posters said and as you are said,light can make or break an art piece

Lighting depends on the more factors,I've been trying to make few interior renders and get the lights right there is sometimes test and error and again you are at square one

Lux or Octane are great renderers,but downside of them,one is slower and second one is quiet expensive and if you are running right now ATI(AMD)GPU,forget on Octane,Octane currently only support nVidia GPU(which are quiet poor in the LuxRender) and for Octane you will need quiet good GPU if you are thinking about the large scene to render,both will and can make nice renders and all depends again on the lighting and if you have a

Problem getting good render is quest of all of us,sometimes takes time to get perfect render and get splotchless render(interior in my case) is quiet challenge sometimes,but not always

I've been using Poser pro for quiet while and must admit,its great software with awesome possibilities 

In last few weeks/months I've tried to improve my interior renders,I've tried almost everything and done several 100's renders and still I've been not happy with the results.

Few weeks ago I've spoke with friend if I can use his PC for test render with his 3DS MAX and V-RAY,he said sure and here is my latest render,still is not finished or is not there,but in this render I've not used any light(only dome with V-RAY HDRI and texture of the sky),now I will be getting student version of the 3DS MAX and V-RAY student version too,which should be OK for testing and if I woudl be happy then I will be buying full version of both.

Lights in 3DS MAX I was thought so is hard,its not and really looking at tutorials over on Youtube is worth it in my view,shame people for Poser Pro not doing such tutorials 

I've considered like you are Octane,but I know for my scenes I would need 6GB GPU and this will cost me more in the end than I've originally thought so 

Now about the Reality,I've bought the Reality when has been in sale and now I'm little bit dissapointed,getting good render in reasonable time its quiet challange

I've never used on my renders any postwork,here is my two,one is V-Ray render and one is normal Poser Pro Firefly render with GC OFF,IDL on and I've used think 4 lights,not sure right now

Hope this helps there,I woudl try to make best render what you have already,Poser Pro really can make nice renders

Thanks,Jura

And here is one which has been rendered with Poser Pro Firefly render with GC OFF,IDL on 

Quote - Few weeks ago I've spoke with friend if I can use his PC for test render with his 3DS MAX and V-RAY,he said sure and here is my latest render,still is not finished or is not there,but in this render I've not used any light(only dome with V-RAY HDRI and texture of the sky),now I will be getting student version of the 3DS MAX and V-RAY student version too,which should be OK for testing and if I woudl be happy then I will be buying full version of both. Lights in 3DS MAX I was thought so is hard,its not and really looking at tutorials over on Youtube is worth it in my view,shame people for Poser Pro not doing such tutorials 

I've considered like you are Octane,but I know for my scenes I would need 6GB GPU and this will cost me more in the end than I've originally thought so

Jura - Those are some great renders!!!

Just thought I might mention that you can't judge the amount of VRAM you will need for Octane by the amount of RAM used in Poser or size of the file. The SiFi image above took over 5Gb of RAM in DS, but took less than 2Gb of VRAM for Octane to render it. So a 6Gb Titan isn't required, unless your rendering really large scenes.

But if you need a Titan, at $1,000 US, plus ~$450 for Qctane and the Poser plugin your cost still less than the annual cost of the full version of 3DS Max and Vray ($1,840+$494 per year, every year you want to use them). I run Octane on a laptop with a Geforce 670M (about the same as a 560 in a desktop) with 3Gb of VRAM and have been very happy with the performance. I still haven't maxed out the VRAM, mainly due to the texture slot limitations (my card is Fermi based - so I can only have 64 color texture maps). The VRAM and texture limitations should go away with Octane V2, there will be an option to use system RAM to supplement VRAM (with a hit on performance).

Of course if Octane or Lux don't work for you, then your options are a bit more limited (though you are getting great results with Firefly). Vue Esprit (or better) might be a less expensive option. But if you want to use Poser Fusion, then your limited to some fairly expensive software. Good luck with 3DS Max and Vray, it looks like your off to a great start.

Quote - > Quote - Few weeks ago I've spoke with friend if I can use his PC for test render with his 3DS MAX and V-RAY,he said sure and here is my latest render,still is not finished or is not there,but in this render I've not used any light(only dome with V-RAY HDRI and texture of the sky),now I will be getting student version of the 3DS MAX and V-RAY student version too,which should be OK for testing and if I woudl be happy then I will be buying full version of both. Lights in 3DS MAX I was thought so is hard,its not and really looking at tutorials over on Youtube is worth it in my view,shame people for Poser Pro not doing such tutorials 

I've considered like you are Octane,but I know for my scenes I would need 6GB GPU and this will cost me more in the end than I've originally thought so

Jura - Those are some great renders!!!

Just thought I might mention that you can't judge the amount of VRAM you will need for Octane by the amount of RAM used in Poser or size of the file. The SiFi image above took over 5Gb of RAM in DS, but took less than 2Gb of VRAM for Octane to render it. So a 6Gb Titan isn't required, unless your rendering really large scenes.

But if you need a Titan, at $1,000 US, plus ~$450 for Qctane and the Poser plugin your cost still less than the annual cost of the full version of 3DS Max and Vray ($1,840+$494 per year, every year you want to use them). I run Octane on a laptop with a Geforce 670M (about the same as a 560 in a desktop) with 3Gb of VRAM and have been very happy with the performance. I still haven't maxed out the VRAM, mainly due to the texture slot limitations (my card is Fermi based - so I can only have 64 color texture maps). The VRAM and texture limitations should go away with Octane V2, there will be an option to use system RAM to supplement VRAM (with a hit on performance).

Of course if Octane or Lux don't work for you, then your options are a bit more limited (though you are getting great results with Firefly). Vue Esprit (or better) might be a less expensive option. But if you want to use Poser Fusion, then your limited to some fairly expensive software. Good luck with 3DS Max and Vray, it looks like your off to a great start.

 

Hi there

 

Thanks for kind comment

I've got already GTX560Ti 2GB and I've tried already Octane on my computer with few renders,but in my case,I would need better GPU.My scene are very large and usualy consist from 2 or more V4 with SSS,fully clothed etc,several props like Stonemason and other bits and pieces,I've been considering Octane now for about the 4 months,but still I just don't think for me its worth it

And about the 3DS MAX and V-Ray,as I said I'm considering V-RAY and 3DS MAX,I will be getting EDU version of both and will see if its OK or not,I know V-RAY is more for architecture than for human rendering,but with few tweaks can make nice renders,I've done several renders,which I will post soon as I will be with my friend(he have them on his PC)

Agree 3DS MAX is very expensive and with V-RAY we are talikng about the crazy money,this subscription not sure if I would need,I know from my personal experience I wouldn't need that

I've spoke in good lenghts with my friend and he said,this subscription is good if you are or I'm pro and I'm doing this as pro,but as for home user,he said,I wouldn't need that,but still I'm considering to buy older 2012 or 2013 version of the 3DS MAX,those new are quiet expensive and V-RAY too I will be using for now EDU version with EDU version of the 3DS MAX,hope so there is no watermark,if yes then,I'm back at square one

Thamks,Jura

Jura - It does sound  like Octane would be a bit difficult for your scenes. Possibly Octane2 might be more usable for you when it's released. You might look into Thea Render too. You would need to export your scenes to .obj, then import and set up the mats/shaders in Thea. But it would be less expensive than 3DS and Vray.

Good luck!

If you have the right video hardware (600 or 700 series) and enough VRAM (3GB+) you can can render reasonable large scenes in Octane 1.5.
The 560 with 2GB when shared with the OS will run pretty quickly out or VRAM. The plugin has a script to resize textures so they need less VRAM but the 560''s limit of texture slots is then the limit. 

Hi guys

 

For me Octane is not option,I'm ditching the nVidia for ATI(AMD) just due nVidia poor implemetation of the OpenGL and OpenCL,I've tested last week friend R9 280X and my view is,its better in the Poser Pro when you have very large scene and is better too when you are using Reality/LuxRender plus biggest plus for me is what I've tested this card under V-RAY RT and results are very good,just due this I'm going with ATI(AMD) for now,my Motherboard support SLI/CrossfireX and nVidia will be used mainly for some CUDA apps,although I don't think I will be using them

I'm considering too other renderers and other software,hope so Poser Pro will start to support .fbx,Poser Fusion is nice addition,but is slow when you are importing larger scene to the 3DS MAX,on other hand I'm sometimes using DAZ3D only due Studio support export fbx,but that's is only one thing which I'm using Studio,export to fbx and import to the 3DS MAX is easy to do

 

Thanks,Jura

I just put my renderer comparison findings in http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2882017