piersyf posted at 9:28AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241019

A_Sunbeam posted at 3:58PM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4240689

OK, so what am I doing wrong? I opened PP11 with Andy, rendered him with Firefly, then with Superfly default settings. The latter looks rather rough ...

Nobody seems to have answered your question, so I'll tell you (you might know already but others might not). It's to do with samples. Default pixel samples is 3. Try it with 10 and you'll see a massive reduction in grain. In Blender cycles a good 'finished render' is at 100 samples, but it looks like SM have done some sort of factoral reduction (maybe 10 to 1?) because just off the bat it looks like 10 samples in Superfly is around 100 samples in Cycles. I could be wrong... anyone know?

Cycles has the option to express samples in area (total simples) or by dimension (which results in n * n actual area samples per pixel). SM decided only to use the dimensional value. So in SuperFly, when you type 10, you're getting 10 * 10 or 100 samples. When you type 3, you're getting 3 * 3 or 9 samples. I like having smaller numbers to type, but it's a pain when explaining what samples you used. The Cycles community seems to consistently speak in postings using the area value.

When you start a SF render, the progress window actually says how many samples you're going to make, and how many you've done so far.

I agree that the SF samples value 3 (i.e. 9 samples) is really only for test renders and even then only for specific conditions. When I do test renders, I am at 10 (100 samples) because I use mesh lighting almost all the time and it really doesn't do well with less than that.

I was just doing a test render - I stopped it at 340 samples (area wise). Obviously it would have needed to cook way longer than that to remove the grain.

Really I don't expect to ever use Cycle in minutes. But I am delighted to get great results from an overnight render that literally could not be matched in FireFly no matter how long you gave it.

bagginsbill posted at 3:03PM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241063

I was just doing a test render - I stopped it at 340 samples (area wise). Obviously it would have needed to cook way longer than that to remove the grain.

Really I don't expect to ever use Cycle in minutes. But I am delighted to get great results from an overnight render that literally could not be matched in FireFly no matter how long you gave it.

Hi BB

Looks good,I've question did you rendered in CPU or GPU mode ? But those render times are close to Reality/LuxRender times which I wouldn't expect Regarding using only CUDA,will SM implement too OpenCL or SM will pass that and will be using CUDA only ?

Thanks,Jura

I don't have CUDA - I can only do CPU renders. I'm not going to spend money on a CUDA card. Maybe my next computer will have one.

bagginsbill posted at 11:12AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241071

I don't have CUDA - I can only do CPU renders. I'm not going to spend money on a CUDA card. Maybe my next computer will have one.

Regarding OpenCL, I don't know if SM can change that. They mostly are just using whatever Cycles does.

bagginsbill posted at 4:28PM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241072

bagginsbill posted at 11:12AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241071

I don't have CUDA - I can only do CPU renders. I'm not going to spend money on a CUDA card. Maybe my next computer will have one.

Regarding OpenCL, I don't know if SM can change that. They mostly are just using whatever Cycles does.

Hi BB

I know Cycles can be used with OpenCL as I've used in Blender via OpenCL my AMD R9 290 for rendering in Cycles,I'm pretty sure AMD has working on fix on that and I'm pretty sure some issues are still there,but most of issues are sorted

Thanks again for yours reply

Thanks,Jura

jura11 posted at 9:24AM Fri, 27 November 2015 - #4241055

Those single faced geometry always has been pain to render in Poser,I've same model I think is Downtown Apartment,but yours render looks OK,did you used Area lights or not,this will or can help you with better lighting

Regarding the render times,this has been rendered with CPU or GPU and regarding shader,did you modified shader ?

Hi Jura. Looks like you quoted my post in full ,but it doesn't look like you read it (or have not understood my meaning).

1. when I said 'out of the box', that meant I hadn't touched the materials. I didn't even open the materials tab to look under the hood. So no, I didn't touch the shaders.
2. there is no area light. As stated, there is only a skydome and a single infinite. I am well aware that there are ways to improve the lighting AND the materials, but I was checking for light bleed, so it made no sense to have any lights on inside.
3. It was rendered using CPU, but given that I do not consider it a finished standard, did not say how long the render took, and didn't say what my CPU or GPU is, how is it helpful to know that?
4. although I aimed the post at you (my bad) it was because you had asked for an interior scene, which reminded me of something I wanted to test (light bleed with single faced geometry). The render was done solely to test for that.
5. as to render times, check this page http://www.blendernation.com/2012/03/23/19-billion-triangles-render/ I downloaded the .blend and ran it as it came in. It is set to render at 100 samples at 60% of 1920x1080. It rendered on my machine in 54 seconds. I'd hate to think what it would take on Superfly.

cheers

By the way, BB, thanks for the explanation on samples in Superfly. It explains why some renders look like there is a factoral reduction and in other it doesn't... because I didn't understand the 'factor'.

And like BB said before, good bump maps make all the difference.

I have tons of them rendered, but I will post one more. It is rather large and I have no idea what will happen to it when uploaded.

piersyf posted at 12:25AM Fri, 27 November 2015 - #4241117

jura11 posted at 9:24AM Fri, 27 November 2015 - #4241055

Those single faced geometry always has been pain to render in Poser,I've same model I think is Downtown Apartment,but yours render looks OK,did you used Area lights or not,this will or can help you with better lighting

Regarding the render times,this has been rendered with CPU or GPU and regarding shader,did you modified shader ?

Hi Jura. Looks like you quoted my post in full ,but it doesn't look like you read it (or have not understood my meaning).

1. when I said 'out of the box', that meant I hadn't touched the materials. I didn't even open the materials tab to look under the hood. So no, I didn't touch the shaders.
2. there is no area light. As stated, there is only a skydome and a single infinite. I am well aware that there are ways to improve the lighting AND the materials, but I was checking for light bleed, so it made no sense to have any lights on inside.
3. It was rendered using CPU, but given that I do not consider it a finished standard, did not say how long the render took, and didn't say what my CPU or GPU is, how is it helpful to know that?
4. although I aimed the post at you (my bad) it was because you had asked for an interior scene, which reminded me of something I wanted to test (light bleed with single faced geometry). The render was done solely to test for that.
5. as to render times, check this page http://www.blendernation.com/2012/03/23/19-billion-triangles-render/ I downloaded the .blend and ran it as it came in. It is set to render at 100 samples at 60% of 1920x1080. It rendered on my machine in 54 seconds. I'd hate to think what it would take on Superfly.

cheers

Hi there

I read yours post,but those shaders looks much better than stock one there Yes I've read yours reply there regarding,you are used only single Infinite light,but I wanted to say,if you will add extra area light You are said render has been still long,which I can assume is longer than you are expected there or you are expected much faster render

I wanted from anyone to see how interior scene will looks and if this is improved against FireFly,but from picture I can say its improved at least what I can see

I've done that test and on my CPU X5670@4,2GHz my render time is around 52.29seconds and with GPU CUDA EVGA Titan X render took only 20 seconds,wish UI is better in Blender i would use Blender,but with that UI I would rather use 3DS MAX,looks like Cycles improved a lot

Thanks,Jura

shvrdavid posted at 12:47AM Fri, 27 November 2015 - #4241123

And like BB said before, good bump maps make all the difference.

Agree shrdavid,wow looks great there

Thanks,Jura

Cycles in Blender has amazing material options, I would expect that in Superfly, or it would be very frustrating. I am still holding back to get the upgrade not in a hurry after hearing all the disappointments, even though i think it needs more than a test render to judge it. I just wonder how important it is for me as vendor, do i need to include cycles materials now? I haven't seen the set up yet, for the material, only for the render settings.

labellamagica posted at 4:43AM Fri, 27 November 2015 - #4241154

Cycles in Blender has amazing material options, I would expect that in Superfly, ... it needs more than a test render to judge it. I just wonder how important it is for me as vendor, do i need to include cycles materials now? I haven't seen the set up yet, for the material, only for the render settings.

Every Firefly node is converted to a Cycles node before it goes to the Superfly renderer.

If you set up the Firefly material so that it is compatible with Superfly, that would be sufficient. This would mean don't use AO nodes for example; Superfly will inherently account for AO, so the old Firefly cheat doesn't make sense (actually, it has been redundant even for Firefly since P8 ).

This is a skin with chain mail overlay setup; it has some added complexity because I also lightened/desaturated the skin.

This was my first decent Superfly render simplified the existing materials.

Dawn

Cheers

Jon

Some tests, all the shaders are cycle

Ok, so here comes my first Superfly render.

No guarantee at all of having done everything correctly!

For the lighting, I used this technique: RDNA Forum Post. I am using the Reality dome as suggested (it is huge).

I used this free HDRI image (Creative Commons license, they like you to spread the link): HDRI Field

I had loaded one of the HDRVFX lighting sets that come with Poser. Later on, tests showed that the IBL light actually does nothing in Superfly. But the specular only (spotlight) seems to have some effect. I think most of the light in the scene comes from the HDRI background on the Emissive node though. So far, I have only managed to get spotlights and Area lights to show up in Superfly at all.

For the ground, I used the Construct (new P11 Ground/Sky object). I set the sky part to transparent, and scaled down the whole thing to meet the HDRI background around horizon level. The ground is Surface of the Woods by ShaaraMuse3D here at Renderosity. I placed a rock and a couple of ferns (also by ShaaraMuse3D) to mask the transition. I also lowered the Diffuse value on them to make them blend in. So just using Firefly shaders.

The female figure is Pauline. I created a quick V4-morph (so that she can start wearing my dynamic clothing) and put her in my Dynamic Slip Dress. Created a couple of new dynamic cloth groups on the fly to transition the skirt into a more flowy drape while keeping the top part more solid. The gun is from Powerage's Weapon Collection and the hair is BO Pixie Cut. I haven't created new hair shaders yet so it was best to go with something short. M4 in the background is wearing an upcoming product. No particular cloth shaders, just old Firefly ones.

I would like to add more windy hair and wind on the dress for the next render. Perhaps some blood on the dress. And M4 should be carrying her shoes by the straps - looks like they left the party early for some reason... ;)

Here is a WIP render of a cycles V4 skin material, untill I have about 60 hours of work in it: making testrenders, reading about the new cycle-nodes, digging old V4 skin threads, reading about the principles of skinshaders.... (I got very little sleep last week) but until so far I'm more then exited about the results.

Just Ignore the stupid hair, it was just an old converted kozaburo (which was very good in the old days), I have to work on the SSS on the hands, which is too much. I had only one HDR-light, without any onther lights. It took about 7,5min to renders with 20 samples on my CPU Intel Core I7.

I post a close-up after I had diner.

Bopper.

Here's the close-up...

This render took a little longer: about 40min. with the same settings 20 samples on a plain CPU, I've tried GPU rendering on my quadro 2200K card but in fact it was slower! Perhaps because there is not so much caustic refelctions in it. Cycles is a great renderengine, I use octane and Luxrender, but cycles is way faster. There are a lot more of Cycle nodes I have to play, but it has so much potential.

I love it. Just this alone make the whole upgrade to poserpro11 justfiable. I've have a lot of complaints, because in my opinion the product isn't finished but the new cycle render is fantastic and will completely change the way we look at rendering

I'm starting more detailed experiments with the Cycles nodes, particularly the Glossy Bsdf. I've known even from FireFly that soft specular reflections are the key to realism. But there are multiple implementations of these in FireFly and even more in Cycles. Since they're wildly different, it follows that they're not all physically correct - if they were they'd produce the same results.

Which means - lots of judgement calls about what looks right and what doesn't.

Obviously everybody wants a great skin shader but I can't yet produce a believable procedural leather that is better than what I produced in FireFly years ago. My trusty Blinn node has been reprogrammed for FireFly and I do not get the results from it that I'm used to, so I have to find an alternative.

Here I tried various leather shaders, and just for grins tried to make the skin look OK. Didn't happen. But the leather looks decent. I'm sure that this will take practice. It's like being an expert pianist and then try to play the oboe. I know the notes, but can't make the sounds I want.

A soft finish on gold is so much better in SuperFly than FireFly. Glossy, polished gold was always possible. But this is different.

You mean that with a blinn node, even when you make a firefly render, you don't get the same results as in poser 10 or poserpro 2104? Now that would be stupid!

The gold looks great by the way

bopperthijs posted at 7:48PM Mon, 30 November 2015 - #4241673

You mean that with a blinn node, even when you make a firefly render, you don't get the same results as in poser 10 or poserpro 2104?

No. I mistyped. I meant to type: My trusty Blinn node has been reprogrammed for SuperFly. It works as it always did in FF. Sorry about that.

Pffff.. That's a relief! They broke a lot of things with the new upgrade, but at least I can still render my old files. Saying that, I'm still really pleased with the new renderer: You said that you knew the notes, but you can't make the sounds. Well I think it's just a way of finding the keys (or buttons ) and knowing how to use them.

But I can understand how feel: I'm a guitarist and I also had some organ lessons. But it feels completely different! your hands are in the wrong way!

To keep this anology, I think firefly and superfly are more like a piano and an organ: they sounds different and have a different ways to play, but they both have a keyboard.

Can somebody please god not render women that look like grinning serial killer mannequins or high end premium sex dolls. Lol. At least with limitations in realistic rendering in Firefly you don't fall flat faced into the uncanny valley... with superfly it becomes glaringly apparent that Poser Human models aren't up to the task. Seriously, no insult intended whatsoever, but these images are just plain grotesque. Which in of itself wouldn't be a bad thing if it were intentional... Is it Superfly or just a really expensive sex doll? Lol.

Yup, the sex doll is hotter. C-

Huh?

Well mine was supposed to be an actual serial killer so I guess I am excused... ;)

Anyone interested in starting a separate thread about lighting setups for SuperFly? At least for me, this is something I need to get correct before I even start on the materials.

Another version of this render was already shown at RDNA. Found a Superfly skin node setup somewhere in their forums.Updated the Poserworld bathroom textures to 2015 standards including a cheap-imitation-gold shader for the mirror frame. One skin texture is a conversion. The underwear is a Wardrobe Wizard conversion. The headtowel once belonged to Victoria 3. Guess which figure(s) I used. And 2 area lights were used representing ceiling and mirror lights. The result is below.

EldritchCellar posted at 7:43AM Tue, 01 December 2015 - #4241696

Can somebody please god not render women that look like grinning serial killer mannequins or high end premium sex dolls. Lol. At least with limitations in realistic rendering in Firefly you don't fall flat faced into the uncanny valley... with superfly it becomes glaringly apparent that Poser Human models aren't up to the task. Seriously, no insult intended whatsoever, but these images are just plain grotesque. Which in of itself wouldn't be a bad thing if it were intentional... Is it Superfly or just a really expensive sex doll? Lol.

LMFAO that just made me laugh out loud , couldn't agree with you more ....

DarthJ posted at 9:27AM Tue, 01 December 2015 - #4241723

Another version of this render was already shown at RDNA. Found a Superfly skin node setup somewhere in their forums.Updated the Poserworld bathroom textures to 2015 standards including a cheap-imitation-gold shader for the mirror frame. One skin texture is a conversion. The underwear is a Wardrobe Wizard conversion. The headtowel once belonged to Victoria 3. Guess which figure(s) I used. And 2 area lights were used representing ceiling and mirror lights. The result is below.

Well the figure on the right looks like my girlfriend. How'd you get a picture of my girlfriend?!!! Why I oughtta... lol.

Quote :

Well the figure on the right looks like my girlfriend. How'd you get a picture of my girlfriend?!!! Why I oughtta... lol.

Do post a picture of your girlfriend in similar attire to compare.

Nice caustics on that vase render BB.

Thanks for all these renders really helps one to make his mind. One thing I've noticed, while most props and such look really convincing, the majority of figures do not at all. It's like everyone is rendering a bit fake looking mannequins in a realistic enviroment, it's kind of surreal.

aeilkema posted at 11:45PM Tue, 01 December 2015 - #4241847

One thing I've noticed, while most props and such look really convincing, the majority of figures do not at all. It's like everyone is rendering a bit fake looking mannequins in a realistic enviroment, it's kind of surreal.

For a realistic humanoid figure, you need high quality textures, sophisticated (read more than 5 nodes ;-)) shaders, realistic posing and expressions; a realistic prop needs neither posing nor expressions and can go with simple shaders. It is just a question of complexity: humans are among the most complex things you can render. Personally, when I start with something very new, I begin with (at most) the Cornell box. First crawl, then walk, then run.

You understand that your comments will push me to limits to get a convincing realistic render. I know everyting about lousy textures and the last week I've seen quite a few. Instead of making comments about stupid grins you should better look at the skin. For my next render I will use the most fat and ugliest woman I have made in the last 10 years and put the most grumpiest expression I have made on her face. That will teach you!!!!! And as butter on the cake I will dress her in the tiniest bikini I can find. So you are warned!

But being serious... Perhaps I've got have choosen a better expression and character, but I just wanted to show the skin and I needed a vehicle. The figure is click and render (not!, rendersettings need also time),, the skin is not. I have spent hours and hours to get the right nodes and settings. Every material zone has got its attention and all have have different settings,(although I believe I forgot the feet) I have even considered to make a new material zone for the ears. And believe me, I don't have a 5-node shader Not as big I had for V4 on firefly , but about 20 at least.

Superfly (or cycles) is a new episode for poser, so we will have to learn things again. Solutions we have had in the past, don't work anymore so we will have to find new solutions.

Perhaps we need a sticky thread where we can share our experiences.

Best regards,

Bopper.

Not talking about the expressions or pose or such at all :D Just the figures in general. If I'm honest, most of them make me feel like I'm looking to a Poser 4 render engine image, that's what they remind me off. With Firefly some of the figures were close to very realistic, but most of these renders the figures look like plastic dolls again. Imo, a step back, not forward.

aeilkema posted at 2:22PM Wed, 02 December 2015 - #4241951

Imo, a step back, not forward.

It is not a step back, it is just that being Cycles a good/very good engine (differently from Firefly) it ruthlessly exposes the lack of high quality content and of sophisticated shaders (and lack of user experience). On BlenderArtists forums there are many threads which show what competent people can get out of humanoid figures in Cycles.

Many of the really good photoreal cg stills of humans are done with image specific static sculptures with high frequency maps, normal, displacement, etc. I guess poseable one size fits all dolls are gonna look like... poseable dolls. Don't expect to get comparable models and textures with Bunny for V4 and her conforming latex strap micro bikini getup (on clearance).

...ever notice that most of the really good, effective pin up art (outside the tiny Poser art world) isn't photorealistic, even if very realistic?

"Thanks for all these renders really helps one to make his mind. One thing I've noticed, while most props and such look really convincing, the majority of figures do not at all. It's like everyone is rendering a bit fake looking mannequins in a realistic environment, it's kind of surreal."

Remember all of the die hard "Posette Forever " Fanatics?? who were finally silenced by the harsh (relative) realism of firely's ray tracer??.

Well We have the same paradigm with this new render engine only there is no poser native "Vicky" to save the Day

I am glad to see users final learning the lighting& Shaders of this cycles based render engine as many of the earlier posted Images looked like bryce renders from 1998.

But alas a proper PBR only highlights the prevailing problem for poser ... a lack of high quality native figures that are less than 10 years old(V4,M4).

chaecuna posted at 11:09AM Wed, 02 December 2015 - #4241982

aeilkema posted at 2:22PM Wed, 02 December 2015 - #4241951

Imo, a step back, not forward.

It is not a step back, it is just that being Cycles a good/very good engine (differently from Firefly) it ruthlessly exposes the lack of high quality content and of sophisticated shaders (and lack of user experience). On BlenderArtists forums there are many threads which show what competent people can get out of humanoid figures in Cycles.

They also show what incompetent people can get out of Cycles... dreck. But many of these folks become competent and turn out great work with time and practice.

DarthJ posted at 11:12AM Wed, 02 December 2015 - #4241779

Quote :

Well the figure on the right looks like my girlfriend. How'd you get a picture of my girlfriend?!!! Why I oughtta... lol.

Do post a picture of your girlfriend in similar attire to compare.

She jumped back in the shower and pulled the curtain when she noticed my camera. She'll come out eventually though, and I'll be waiting. ;-)

Love the commentary. Don't know what to do about the people. Be ironic, I guess?

While working more on the leather (and the frosted glass lamp shade in the back) I decided to make this, titled:

"James easily high jumps the coffee table."

Self congratulation followed - after all - he is a Poser.

Ordinarily wouldn't some expert be jumping all over James' bends right bout now. Some Poser. And there's no shortage.

...and no splotchies.