Of course, anyone can load a photo onto a plane and then render it. It will look very convincing. lol.

Wolf, it's not the model and the fact that we recognize it that makes it look like a render. It's the way the model looks like a flat image pasted onto a flat background. There's something seriously wrong with the lighting because the human appears to have a sharp outline. And the resolution of the background doesn't match the resolution of the skin texture.

Plus, he's naked, bald, and expressionless -- a sure fire indication that it's not even a photoshop cut out job.

Not bad at all for a few clicks, though. But as I said, you still have to do extensive fiddling to get a convincing image. :)

"Of course, anyone can load a photo onto a plane and then render it. It will look very convincing. lol."

If you're referring to the Axyz figures by that comment, these new figures are not simple "billboard" type "photographs", but actual 3D sculpts like the DAZ and Poser figures are.

The difference is simply that they are created via a process called photogrammetry instead of being manually sculpted.

moriador was refering to wolf359 render of M4 not the secure.axyz-design.com.

secure.axyz-design.com characters look as good as any others .
might want to make there eyes look alive thou.
since there not rigged for Poser and coast more then $5.00.
and not a barbie doll that ya can dress how ya want.
doubt many Poser users would be interested.

Quote -  

"Of course, anyone can load a photo onto a plane and then render it. It will look very convincing. lol."

---

If you're referring to the Axyz figures by that comment, these new figures are not simple "billboard" type "photographs", but actual 3D sculpts like the DAZ and Poser figures are.

The difference is simply that they are created via a process called photogrammetry instead of being manually sculpted.

I  was referring simply to the fact that you can use all sorts of complicated techniques, but in the end, the simplest is the easiest. Wasn't actually referring to those particular figures.

But they DO have a sort of billboard look to them, as though the texture is not being affected by light in the scene (it's also a very low res texture). Perhaps the texture has a massive amount of baked in specular and shadow?

The clay renders look very good. But I'm guessing that they are not posable.

(Or at least not as nice things as the other kids have)

;-)

Anyway, my point was simply to demonstrate that the only thing preventing Poser from being a "one-click Photorealism" tool is it's lack of "one-click photorealism" figures.

The technology is out there, that's all what I'm saying.

BTW, the girl used here is just one of Azyx' static props. There is only one material zone, so the texture is just plugged into diffuse.

If you want a poseable figure, you'd have to buy one of the pre-rigged MAX versions and rig it yourself in Poser.

Of course as long as the community has a general "I'll wishlist it until there is a 50% sale" and "Realism is overrated anyway" attitude, no professional company will bother creating figures that use cutting edge technology just for Poser. Not for $500 and especially not for $5.

But if we really wanted, yes, we could have that coveted "Photorealism" thing easily.

:-)

"Anyway, my point was simply to demonstrate that the only thing preventing Poser from being a "one-click Photorealism" tool is it's lack of "one-click photorealism" figures."

There is no such thing as a general use
*** "one click photorealism figure"***

'Photo realism" is NOT achieved soley by a 3D objects modeling details and textures.
it is a combination of those factors along with a proper GI lighting model ( biased or unbiased)
along with A skilled user who understands photographic principles(real world lighting)
and of course purpose built Shaders and hair for a specific render engine.

"Of course as long as the community has a general "I'll wishlist it until there is a 50% sale" and "Realism is overrated anyway" attitude, no professional company will bother creating figures that use cutting edge technology just for Poser. Not for $500 and especially not for $5".

why would one expect any "professional Company"
to create "creating figures that use cutting edge technology just for....... Poser"??

is that not Smith micro's responsibility??
Have a look at this model 16,000 polygon here:

[no direct links to commercial sites please]

Read about all the meticulous effort and features
that make this purpose built model render specifically in Autodesk MAX with mental ray shaders etc.

Say what you want about DAZ but they appear to have followed same"purpose built " for D/S idealology with genesis .

As long as SM delivers CRAP figures like Alison& Ryan
while hoping some third party produces a miracle figure
for poser........well you know the rest.

Let's not forget that DAZ was that third party for Poser before they built their own software.

And despite everyone's trepidation, Hivewire is making some pretty good strides towards making Dawn a viable Poser figure. Depending on which way Poser goes with their tech, will determine which way Dawn goes, I think.

"Of course as long as the community has a general "I'll wishlist it until there is a 50% sale" and "Realism is overrated anyway" attitude, no professional company will bother creating figures that use cutting edge technology just for Poser. Not for $500 and especially not for $5".

why would one expect any "professional Company"
to create "creating figures that use cutting edge technology just for....... Poser"??

Why would anyone expect a user whos aim is not to produce photorealistic renders to pay full price for anything on the basis it may somehow result an improvement that they probably would not use anyway.  Added to that is the fact that a large number of Poser users are hobbyists and could/would not dream of being able to buy photorealisc products at 'professional company' prices.

Bit like saying I will not buy my Ford at a sale price in the hope that Ferrari will build a better car.

Andor Kollar character is a fine character.It can't morph & dress like M5 but it's a fine character.

funny thing is the same mesh
if it's a
Character.Max ya can ask $600.00 what ever ya want thousands even.
Character .DAZ Poser $50.00
Character.Blender $10.00
All for the same mesh.
So where ya going to sell your characters ?

Why would Andor Kollar sell his character here for $550.00 less & have to make morphs and put up with every one complaining about every little nip pick thing ?

I like HiveWire3D and Dawn just fine.
They don't seem to be in any kind of hurry thou.

Quote - Bit like saying I will not buy my Ford at a sale price in the hope that Ferrari will build a better car.

I have a very nice Ferrari,Lamborghini,Viper & a 55 Chevy etc etc Hot Wheels collection :)

Drive a FORD thou ;)

Quote - > Quote - Bit like saying I will not buy my Ford at a sale price in the hope that Ferrari will build a better car.

I have a very nice Ferrari,Lamborghini,Viper & a 55 Chevy etc etc Hot Wheels collection :)

Drive a FORD thou ;)

Nice collection ...I'm jealous, no hot wheels at all this end and I drive a 14 year old Honda.

Both my brothers drive Chevy and Dodge. 

I drive a 12 yr old Toyota Tacoma 4x4, because I prefer spending more time in my truck than I do under it. lol. 130K miles and still purs as smooth as the day I bought it and I've driven it cross-country twice. Sure, it kills 10 dinosaurs every time I start it, but I wouldn't trade it for anything. Except maybe a newer one that only kills about 8. 

Anyway, nice renders. Yes that would be nice to have in Poser, but I'm not one that strives for photorealism, so I don't really mind that it takes other software to produce those kind of results. Poser can get pretty close with enough patience and practice if that's what you really need. For me, like I said before, I have a nice Canon that I can use for photo real, so it doesn't bother me. If it did I would just get the reality plug-in or something similar. I might even invest in KeyShot for ZBrush when it comes out in the next several weeks. That way I can send all my Poser content there if I want to render realism. Haven't decided yet tho. Will wait and see.

"And despite everyone's trepidation, Hivewire is making some pretty good strides towards making Dawn a viable Poser figure. Depending on which way Poser goes with their tech, will determine which way Dawn goes, I think."
 
IMHO the above quote is the same old problem.
Poser has always promoted itself as "the ultimate Figure design & animation tool"

OK.. hyperbole or not poser is primarily a Figure based Tool and a good one at that overall.

Unlike  Autodesk Max  etc.,poser  is not (nor should it attempt to be)
A full CG visual Effects solution.

Now if your primary purpose  is figures why would you sit around and wait for  some third party to produce the very thing that is the core of your programs purpose....."a viable Poser figure."

Not a very good  business model IMHO.

I mean even assuming Hivewire ,or whomever , is on the verge of creating a
 "killer figure" one unfortunate round of an improperly refrigerated shrimp salad at the hivewire annual picnic and SM is left hanging.

"funny thing is the same mesh
if it's a Character.Max ya can ask $600.00 what ever ya want thousands even.
Character .DAZ Poser $50.00
Character.Blender $10.00
All for the same mesh.
So where ya going to sell your characters ?"

Rorrkorn it is not just a Matter of it being the "same" Collection of polygons/vertices

That Andor Kollar character ,on Turbosquid, is purpose built& rigged to animate and render in a $3000+ USD CG /VFX solution with the NATIVE Shaders of the default mental ray render engine of that platform.

Someone  using Autodesk Max and needing a realistic CG stand-in for a VFX shot in some multi-Million Dollar Summer blockbuster or even a well funded indie project, is not going to balk at its $600 price.

it is a Different user market at that level.

just like the steak fries at Celebrity Chef Ramsey's Manhattan Restaurant
will cost ALOT more than your order of large fries at McDonald's Despite the fact
they used the exact same raw potatoes.
 

I drive a biped (legs), can't afford a car :-(

Quote -
I drive a biped (legs), can't afford a car :-(

I have them as well (legs) and use them in preference to the car when I can which includes when I am out with the dog.  My dog gives the impression he would walk 24/7, the longest walk yet was close to three hours.  After three hours I was fit for nothing while he did another 20 odd circuits of our garden at full pelt just to prove he had plenty left in him.

I use the car three times a week on average, twice to take my dog to an enclosed field where he can show just how fast he is.  I have to do this as he chases cats if he is not on the lead so all walks are on the lead.  I know most dogs chase cats but as he is a five year old lurcher he is fast enough to catch them.   The other trip is the weekly shop for food.

Mind you the dog was adopted with the idea of making me walk more as otherwise I may never move away from my Poser screen.

First, photorealism.  I'm spoiled, don't even show me a 35mm shot, because none of them can stand up to a 4 x 5 Graphic.  Even with an old lens.  In 3d, forget it, not really possible.  Whether the figures would support it, as it's a digital medium with limited resolution, it wouldn't make any difference.  Close enough for most uses, but the argument will no doubt continue until people forget that there once were cameras that used film and chemical processsing.

3d figures, as in dawn.  First impression, and I bought the whole package, sorry, you don't get a second chance.  Period.

Cars.  I'd look at any Jap car only after I had both thighs and both arms broken and the American automakers were gone.  Now driving a 2009 PT Cruiser and love it.  1979 MG Midget in the garage, if you want to know what a maintenence headache is.  Fun to drive when it's running right, but Doug's Auto Repair loves it too.

Doric. 

Hehe, well Doric - my Tacoma was built in Kentucky, while my brother's Dodge - which is two years newer than my Tacoma - was built in Mexico. And he's already had to rebuild the engine, and is about to have to rebuild the transmission - which is another thing I hate - I will never drive an automatic. My truck is 5-speed manual, 4.3L V6, extend cab (not a double cab cause I hate those too) TRD offroad w/ towing package and and power everything. And everything on it, except the tail gate and tires, is still factory. The only major repairs I've ever had to do was replace the O2 sensors. The guy that had it before me busted up the tailgate somehow (from inside the bed, it wasn't a wreck), so that had to be replaced but was done by the dealer I bought it from. I paid $16K for it, and its trade-in value is still over $10K, private sale is around $12K, but I could actually get a good bit more than that if I tried, cause the body style is huge among Tacoma enthusiasts. The newer styles aren't so popular. Meanwhile, my brother's Dakota has a trade-in value of about $3K, in much better condition than his is in and his doesn't even have but just over 100K miles on it now. Tacomas are solid trucks and their engines last forever. I'm planning on putting a lift kit on it and some nice custom bumpers when I can afford it. It does need some new paint but nothin major. 

As for walking vs driving, I would do that if I didn't live so far out in the country, but it would take me half a day to walk to the nearest grocery store, and I'd have to walk through some pretty rough neighborhoods to get there. Where I live you have to get on the interstate to go just about anywhere important, and you couldn't pay me to live in the city limits, where they want to tax you to death for every little thing and tell you what you can do with your own house and yard. No thanks. If I could live further out than where I live now then I would cause I don't like living in a neighborhood where everybody knows your business. I like my privacy.

I am in the process of restoring one of my old moutain bikes tho. I used to bike everywhere when I was younger and miss it quite a lot. 

Anyway, not tryin to derail. 

wolf359 your going to half to work on ya mind reading skills ;)
or eather I'm going to half to get better at writting ,wich is never going to happen. :(

Anyways what I'm trying to say is.
If your good enought to make realistic characters.
Then chances are your going to sell ya mesh for Max.
If ya good enought to sell $2000.00 meshes for Max."Nikola Dechev"
Then why would you sell meshes here for $50.00 ?

So I wouldn't hold my breath for out of the box,one click renders realistic characters for Poser

Quote - And that's why we can't have nice things in Poser.

(Or at least not as nice things as the other kids have)

;-)

Anyway, my point was simply to demonstrate that the only thing preventing Poser from being a "one-click Photorealism" tool is it's lack of "one-click photorealism" figures.

The technology is out there, that's all what I'm saying.

BTW, the girl used here is just one of Azyx' static props. There is only one material zone, so the texture is just plugged into diffuse.

If you want a poseable figure, you'd have to buy one of the pre-rigged MAX versions and rig it yourself in Poser.

Of course as long as the community has a general "I'll wishlist it until there is a 50% sale" and "Realism is overrated anyway" attitude, no professional company will bother creating figures that use cutting edge technology just for Poser. Not for $500 and especially not for $5.

But if we really wanted, yes, we could have that coveted "Photorealism" thing easily.

:-)

 

Sorry. Figure still looks like a cutout. The light doesn't match the scene. As I said, baked in spec and shadows. 

If you're suggesting that we can't have "nice things" because we're too critical, I'd say it's the exact opposite. We don't get photorealism because we regularly settle for less and tend to react badly to people who point out flaws.

I do think there is far too much criticism of people's figure creations. But when you suggest that something really is PHOTOREALISTIC, that's a remarkable claim that deserves to be examined in detail.

As for wishlisting until sale, when the marketplaces put items on sale every other day, you'd be throwing money away if you paid full price -- unless you need them immediately.

Mind you, I fully expect that people who are purchasing something they feel they NEED for a specific render (for a client, say), then they may full price because they're on deadline. But if it's just a WANT, because this is a hobby, there's no deadline beyond your personal patience because everything does go on sale eventually. And almost all your purchases are a matter of choice. They are 'luxury' items, no necessities.

If the marketplace wants people to stop waiting for sales, they should stop putting things on sale and just price them at the price they expect to sell them for.

Obviously, however, most MPs do have sales (even Adobe -- I bought photoshop CS5 on a 24 hour educational discount for everyone sale) -- because it increases revenue. So it's kinda silly to complain about it, doncha think?

"Cars.  I'd look at any Jap car only after I had both thighs and both arms broken and the American automakers were gone..."*

Bet you'd be glad of one if your life depended in it's reliability.  I'd totally buy a Toyota, they're the most respected car maker in the world.  Whenever I look into different countries for relocation it's amazing that whenever it comes to buying a car there, it's pretty much always the same "Just buy a Toyota and don't even think about anything else".

Click to discover why a certain Mod spends more time in his Toyota than under it

And if that's not convincing, here's part 2
And if that's not convincing, here's part 3

:woot:

I find it odd that the poll for the most repected/best car company is based on trade ins. If it was such a good car, why did they trade it in? And who did they actually ask? The dealers... Sort of makes it biased right off the bat.

The most reliable vehicle I ever owned was a 64 Dodge W200. It still ran fine when I got rid of it, but the body would have made swiss cheese jealous.

I had a 84 Honda Civic for years that I put about 400k on, and I bought it used. It rusted to pieces as well.

My 96 Lumina just recently expired, at 180k.

My 05 StI is on engine rebuild number 4, but that happens when you run 35+ psi of boost... Engines don't last long when run that much boost. (GT4088r turbo) It's my play toy... The rest of the car puts up with it, which says a lot about Subaru in general. Not to many drivetrains are designed to put up with all but 3 times the factory power output.

How long a car lasts has isn't just who built it.

Luck, how you drive it, and servicing it have a lot to do with it.

Quote - *
"Cars.  I'd look at any Jap car only after I had both thighs and both arms broken and the American automakers were gone..."*

Bet you'd be glad of one if your life depended in it's reliability.  I'd totally buy a Toyota, they're the most respected car maker in the world.  Whenever I look into different countries for relocation it's amazing that whenever it comes to buying a car there, it's pretty much always the same "Just buy a Toyota and don't even think about anything else".

Click to discover why a certain Mod spends more time in his Toyota than under it

And if that's not convincing, here's part 2
And if that's not convincing, here's part 3

:woot:

Heh. One of my boyfriends in university drove a 1981 Datsun that I think he bought for about $500. And he literally drove it into the ground. He drove for a year without a functioning clutch. Getting up hills was difficult. He would sometimes have to open the door and stick his leg out to push the car over the hill. For steeper hills, if he was unlucky enough to have to stop at a light, he'd jump out of his car and ask the guy behind to push him through the light. Engine kept running despite all sorts of abuse of this sort. Eventually, he grabbed the user manual and fixed the thing himself. Took him about a month to figure it out. It wouldn't surprise me to find that he still drove it. Toyotas are like that -- only even more so.

**
@David**
Sorry, can't agree on that, Toyota are the goto maker if you want reliability, it's nothing to do with luck and everything to do with reliable engineering - they've earned their reputation across the world.  It's because of their reputation that they chose to try and kill a Toyota.

@Moriador
I agree, and as they say ... "The Car in Front is a Toyota".
It's a sight David has often experienced while having his Dodge towed by one!

Haha, just kidding, David :biggrin:

Yeah, that Toyota is badass cool.  It would make a wicked getaway car and it's perfect for carrying lots of headless Vickies in the back after a culling trip!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl With Blade

Something Pumeco and I can actually agree on. LOL. 

That video made me all misty-eyed. No joke. I'm tellin ya, Toyota trucks are beasts and they just don't know how to quit. If you've never owned one then you just won't understand until you do. After watchin that vid, and after the customs that I'm wantin to do to mine (check out tacoma world forums for some sweet custom mods), I know I'll be ready for whenever the zombie apocalypse gets here. LOL. 

(Click for a picture of my baby - from back when I was livin in FL for animation school)

I can't say the same for their cars tho. They just don't seem to have the same longevity that the trucks do. And with all these BS regulations requiring the electronic crap be added to them, those are the parts that cause the most problems. Like my O2 sensors, that the engine doesn't actually need to run, but the feds want them in there, and when they go bad they can cause a lot of other problems. And no, you couldn't pay me to even ride in a Prius, much less buy one. Electricity is for blenders and toaster ovens. Gas is for cars and trucks. I won't even use an electric mower. Maybe when they get some real power under their hoods and can run for more than 2 hours, I'll reconsider it. But probably not. 

And yes, I'm one of them rednecks that wants some trucknutz (google it) just cause they're hilarious to see, and cause I hate-hate-hate when people refer to their trucks as 'she'. lol. But I haven't been brave enough for that yet cause they can get you tickets. There's a case going right now about an old woman who took it to court over free speech violations, when she got a ticket for $400. Case is still pending. 

As for trade-ins, Tacomas are pretty hard to find used, at least around here. And when you do, it's likely at a Toyota dealer, from someone who traded for a newer model, cause many these days are all about the bling-bling, shiny and new. Pretty sure that was the case with mine. It took me a few weeks to find mine at a price I could afford and in a condition that I was happy with. You can check Kelley Blue Book and compaire their values with any other truck in the same age and class - Tacomas will always be the highest rated and highest valued, and KBB is known for being pretty accurate. My county uses it as one of their guages for annual property taxes (which is still around $225/yr for my 12 yr old truck). 

Oh, and my insurance is $29 a month - due in large part to it's safety rating. It's just liability but even full coverage would only cost me about $60. 

Hey Pumeco - you could always get a Robin! LOLOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8

I about died laughing watching that craziness. I didn't even realize this was a real car at first - if you can even call it a car. I thought it was some kind of experimental thing they did for that show, but nope, no experiment at all - just mental. At least folks in the US have enough common sense to make this special brand of stupid illegal in most places. Do you even have to wonder why? not to mention the designers obviously haven't grasped the basic laws of physics that deal with balance. But I must thank them for the high levels of humor learning about this wonder of design has brought to my day.

A 1980 Datson station wagon was my first car. My uncle gave it to me after he drove it for proly 15 years. It did run good but boy was it ugly as hell and embarrassing to drive. LOL. It's still parked in my parents backyard under another 10+ years of pine straw and who knows what living in it.

Actually my very first car was a 71 (or 2) 3-speed Rally Sport Camero, but I never got to drive it. When I got it, the gas tank was in the trunk and the mufler and some other parts in the back seat. It was white and rust. My dad got it for me as one of those father-son projects when I turned 15 and got my permit. But we never could get it to run for more than 5 or 10 minutes and even then it wasn't all that safe. And my dad is a mechanic most of his life. His front yard looks like a parking lot. Back when he was in his mid 20s, the county actually sent him a notice that if he bought and sold another vehicle he'd have to apply for a dealer's license. 

ANYWAY... now that this thread has been thuroughly hi-jacked. Sorry. Don't even know how it got side-tracked to cars but I'm just as guilty here for that one. 

I did want to say tho, back on topic - that one thing, which I meant to mention in a previous post - that bugs me about all the photo-realism and hi-res textures and such, is this: 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/media/folder_11/file_507223.jpg

This example, from Wolf, isn't too bad, but it's not just the burned-in highlights that bug me (I don't see much of that in this image), but also the burned-in wrinkles and folds that wind up looking like scars or magic markers most of the time because they're just not natural-looking at all. I'm pointing specifically to the wrinkles in the forehead, and under the chin. Too many texture artists try using these lines instead of blending them out and creating displacement maps to create the folds in the skin, the way it should be done if you're aiming for realism. Those lines are created by the lighting in real life and how that light passes through the skin (sub-surface scatter), not the skin color itself. The skin will sometimes blend into a bit of a darker area around those wrinkles, but if you look in a mirror, and stretch out the wrinkles in your own forehead, you will usually see that the creases themselves, when flattened, are whiter than the rest of the skin around them.

You see this especially right along the creases of butt cheeks and thighs. Someone just posted a render of a Dawn character in another thread recently, where those butt-crease lines look like really bad surgery scars. They don't even follow the bends of the model in different poses, because those creases in real life are more shadow than anything else. It's horrible when used in textures and takes away from the realism in any image, regardless of how realistic the rest of the lighting and scene might look. 

And I think also this is one of the big reasons why older characters aren't seen very often, cause the few who do try doing older people, want to fill the faces and bodies with wrinkles, which wind up looking like the Carver (from Nip-Tuck) got hold of them. It's just bad looking. Let the wrinkles be created by displacement maps and lighting, not the texture itself. 

This is especially apparent in hand/finger textures, where the skin on the knuckles show all the wrinkles from the photo. Makes the hands look dirty like they've been diggin in things and places they shouldn't be diggin in. 

You can't just clone a skin from 3d.sk over a UV map and pass it off as photo real. Those skin photos need a lot of prep work to blend out highlights AND shadows, along with the specs of dirt and hairs and bits that are often found. 

That and these extremely flat, plastic doll ears. No two ears look exactly alike in real life - they are as unique as finger prints and irises, and yet every figure has the same perfect, volumeless ears that look more like deformed cookies stuck to the sides of a head. For those that do custom head sculpts, they should really pay more attention to the ears. 

Anyway, thats my rant on psuedo-photo real. Why I almost never buy pre-made skin textures/character sets cause it's so hard to find the ones that are done well with attention to detail. 

Hey Pumeco - you could always get a Robin! LOLOL***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8***

I about died laughing watching that craziness...

LMFAO, I'm not kidding, I almost bust a gut watching that :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can tell you're jealous, you saw that sexy Starsky and Hutch custom and desperately want to swap it for your Toyota.  Nah, never saw that episode before, but that really was a real vehicle you could actually buy, there used to be quite a few of them.  The advantages were that they were made out of GRP so they never rusted, and because they had three wheels you could drive them on a bike licence.  Even a complete idiot could maintain and fix one, and they were cheap to insure as well.

That said, don't underesimate the British humour, it's Top Gear and you know what they're like for laying on the hunmour and exaggerating it!

That was super-funny but to be honest they didn't really roll that easy, they were surprisingly sturdy and people even track race them.  And I tell you what, if they really were so powerful they could do wheelies like that, they'd be getting stolen non stop.  The reality is you'd get locked in a mental institute if you stole one for that sort of thing :biggrin:

Nice beastie you have there, but shame on you for not giving her a name.  I thought all men do that with their cars, just like they do with boats etc.  People (including me) even do it with electrical gear sometimes, refering to it as a she.  But yup, that three-wheeler is very real, and if you were to search Robin, Rialto, or Reliant you'll see all the owners clubs appear, they have a cult following these days.

Ok, back On topic or Clarkie will get mad.

BTW, Shane, check this one out as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo

Ok, I'll shut-up now.

While I agree that there are textures floating around that have too much burned in specularity and shadows, I completely disagree that textures used for Poser (Or Studio) should be sanitized of all highlights or photographic detail to be useful.

There is a limit what displacement can do, that's why DAZ developed the HD morphing system.

But there is also a limit what the native render engines in Poser (Or Studio, for that matter) can do.

So going "all displacement" or "all sculpting" won't give you the 100% perfect Photorealism you're after. Maybe with a high end render engine, but not using Firefly.

You "pay" with a lot of additional work and render time (High res displacement maps or very high res subdivision), while getting little back in return.

And if you want to edit out all what makes a photographic texture an actual photograph, why bother with taking a photograph in the first place ?

If I follow your logic, given that every detail is physically there, a pink floodfill texture (maybe with a clever procedural shader) would be all what's needed to create a photorealistic looking render of a human being.

You "theoretically" might be right, but I doubt this approach would be practical in any way - Especially when we're talking "One click" photorealism.

Quote -
I did want to say tho, back on topic - that one thing, which I meant to mention in a previous post - that bugs me about all the photo-realism and hi-res textures and such, is this:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/media/folder_11/file_507223.jpg

This example, from Wolf, isn't too bad, but it's not just the burned-in highlights that bug me (I don't see much of that in this image), but also the burned-in wrinkles and folds that wind up looking like scars or magic markers most of the time because they're just not natural-looking at all. I'm pointing specifically to the wrinkles in the forehead, and under the chin. Too many texture artists try using these lines instead of blending them out and creating displacement maps to create the folds in the skin, the way it should be done if you're aiming for realism. Those lines are created by the lighting in real life and how that light passes through the skin (sub-surface scatter), not the skin color itself. The skin will sometimes blend into a bit of a darker area around those wrinkles, but if you look in a mirror, and stretch out the wrinkles in your own forehead, you will usually see that the creases themselves, when flattened, are whiter than the rest of the skin around them.

You see this especially right along the creases of butt cheeks and thighs. Someone just posted a render of a Dawn character in another thread recently, where those butt-crease lines look like really bad surgery scars. They don't even follow the bends of the model in different poses, because those creases in real life are more shadow than anything else. It's horrible when used in textures and takes away from the realism in any image, regardless of how realistic the rest of the lighting and scene might look.

And I think also this is one of the big reasons why older characters aren't seen very often, cause the few who do try doing older people, want to fill the faces and bodies with wrinkles, which wind up looking like the Carver (from Nip-Tuck) got hold of them. It's just bad looking. Let the wrinkles be created by displacement maps and lighting, not the texture itself.

This is especially apparent in hand/finger textures, where the skin on the knuckles show all the wrinkles from the photo. Makes the hands look dirty like they've been diggin in things and places they shouldn't be diggin in.

You can't just clone a skin from 3d.sk over a UV map and pass it off as photo real. Those skin photos need a lot of prep work to blend out highlights AND shadows, along with the specs of dirt and hairs and bits that are often found.

I do agree with this. I think texturing is an artform (At least that's what I tell the guy I do characters with). You have to know what to take out and what to keep in to strike a balance. Sometimes taking out something wipes out detail, so some of has to stay. And it does depend on what render engine you use as well. And as you texture, you have to render it in the target engine--not the one in the texturing program to see how it looks. The forehead wrinkle are annoying as is forgetting to take out the eye creases so when you close the model's eyes theres not this big line going across. I've also had to go back and clean the spec around the sides of the mouth as well. I think the more non-biased renders (such as Octane and Luxrender) need a cleaner texture for more realistic results because you aren't faking the lighting so you don't need as much tricks in the skin detail.

Quote - That and these extremely flat, plastic doll ears. No two ears look exactly alike in real life - they are as unique as finger prints and irises, and yet every figure has the same perfect, volumeless ears that look more like deformed cookies stuck to the sides of a head. For those that do custom head sculpts, they should really pay more attention to the ears.

I try to play with ears shapes as well on my morphs... and hands, feet, back, nostrils, and glutes too ;)

You don't have to take out all the detail, but a lot of it does need to be knocked back a good bit in the wrinkles and such. Otherwise it looks like dirt. And the splotchiness. Oh my gawd the splotchiness. It's very easy to spot a skin that was cobbled together in photoshop, most of the time. Skin texturing is very much an art form, yes. And there are artists that can air brush skin textures in zbrush that looks just as real as any photo. I understand artists who are just starting out and don't have a lot of resources to put into their software, that's fine. I'm not pointing at them. But for those artists who have been at this a long time and are making a living from it, there's no excuse for them to not have the proper tools (software) to do the job the way it needs to be done. And displacement maps are not that taxing on a machine these days, if the machine is worth using.

Quote - Hehe, well Doric - my Tacoma was built in Kentucky,

You say built, you mean assembled.  Engine, transmission, suspension, the expensive parts, all made outside the U.S.  Bodywork is cheap, punch presses and forming presses, there's less than half a minute actual work time on any body panel.  Body panels then assembled and welded by robots.  I'm not certain any of the body parts were manufactured in the US either, probably came by boat from the orient.

My 2004 Dakota finally needed engine work a couple of months ago, replaced one spark plug.  Granted, it has less than 38000 miles, but those are not the good kind of miles, I don't drive out of town without a very good reason, so that's 99% town miles. 2 miles from my home to the bank, and that's about as far as I drive normally. 

Enough car crap, if you like your Atoyot, continue, but I'll never drive any jap car.  Dodge and Chrysler have always been a good choice for me, I'll stick with what I know works.

Doric.