wolf359 posted at 8:00AM Mon, 14 December 2015 - #4240439

.....And here is the free SIBL GUI for managing your HDR source collection![SIB-GUI.jpg](https://bw-1651cf0d2f737d7adeab84d339dbabd3-forumpro.s3.amazonaws.com ..BTW the bald dude render was set at 100 samples per bucket

Beautiful render and great information. Thanks wolf359.

bagginsbill posted at 8:09AM Mon, 14 December 2015 - #4242928

Here's the shader. The scatter Radius doesn't display - it is set to .7, .2, .1

Excellent!

@ artdude41 so far you seem to be the only superfly user who has a solid handle on portrait style lighting and renders with this new engine..good work

Agreed ! That's a really nice render, easily comparable to something you'd get out of a much higher end app. Really wish you'd post some more details about your settings, materials etc...

Here's my first try at skin. I took BB's shader model and omitted the Spots function. I then added Miki's specular map node to the Specular_color attribute. As you can see, I'm getting the red shadow artifacts too. It can be better or worse depending on the angle and type of the source lights. Point lights really seem to cause problems. The hair is the default SF black hair shader with the colors tweaked to be more auburn. I'm also getting some persistent artifact on the lower eyelashes. Like a little shiny spot. I have not been able to trace the cause yet. 50 samples per bucket, GPU SF render.

wolf359 posted at 1:17AM Tue, 15 December 2015 - #4244148

@ artdude41 so far you seem to be the only superfly user who has a solid handle on portrait style lighting and renders with this new engine..good work

thanks

Believable3D posted at 6:56PM Tue, 15 December 2015 - #4244356

It looks like you've about got the material on the eyes zeroed in. I really struggled with the eyeball shader. It kept coming out waxy or too shiny. I'd be interested to see what other folks are doing for their SF eye shaders.

Thanks, beas. I struggled with it for awhile, got it to where it was just okay, then got some more help from phdubrov over in an RDNA forum thread, and now I'm finally satisfied. At this point, I think the eyes will be pretty near as good as a given texture allows.

It's a little thing, but I'm really happy with how the lacrimals turned out. Never got them to look that good in Firefly at any point.

Here's my first scene type render in Superfly. This is the unretouched render; my gallery version has a couple of Postworkshop filters applied to sharpen it up: https://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/?image_id=2657684

Scene is Stonemason's Enchanted Forest.

Been playing with 11 pro. Have fairly decent Nvidia card with 4 gig memory 1664 cuda cores (whatever that means) so I'm playing with supafly rendering with the card. Certainly frees up the CPU for other uses, but machine seems less responsive, even at 8% cpu being used.

Anyway my question for the gurus here, is Poser 11 pro make my bucket look too big? I read where you should turn off branched path tracing if using graphics card, and boost the bucket size 1-300. Did that, and it was a much bigger chunk of render at a time. But how big is too big? and what does 300 mean? 300 mb of the 4gb on the card? I tried 800 for grins, and it worked fine. BIG chunk of render at one time, but it didn't seem to speed anything up. Had pixel settings to 30. Models (pauline and kate) skin seems a little speckled. Probably me.

Also, I exported the image to see how it looked in photoshop. Now i'm confused. There are pinholes in paulines pants. Her hair is really weird. Kate looks better. When they come into photoshop they are partially transparent; look like ghosts. Kinda scary. More things for me to do wrong. Any suggestions?

If it is like Blender, the bucket size is the size of the image slice you render (e.g. 256x256 pixels). You should try different sizes and check the times to find the optimal amount for your system and type of images.

Here are my renders,those renders I've done on my friend PC with my GPU's(GTX Titan X and GTX780)

First render took around 1 hour and 45mins and samples I've set at 250 I think

And V4 with textures adapted for Cycles,I didn't have lots of time to play,looks OK,but still I'm not very happy with few bits,render not sure,but has been pretty much quick,I've used progressive rendering

Same render,but I've used Gimp for postwork

Thanks,Jura

emily rendered in p11 cycles some light post in photoshop .

I'm just starting to (finally) figure out depth of field in Poser, so this isn't all it could be, and I killed the render before it was completely noise-free (to get the look I'm after, I'm planning on combining it with a fresh render that does not use DoF at all). Still I quite like the way this looks.

Is your display color calibrated properly ? Cause all your renders have very pink colored sclera (the white part)

Not sure who you're talking to. If me, yes; in fact, I made a point of verifying color calibration when I reinstalled Windows a few weeks ago.

My first play with Pauline. I don't have any add-on morph packs, so this is just default morphs plus a few minutes in the Face Room. (No sculpting, even with the morph brush.) Custom skin shaders, which probably could use a bit more bump.

A bit more improvement on Pauline. Replaced the eyebrows and did some other minor work on the head texture; made the eye colour map a bit less saturated, redid the hair shader etc.

Thanks for all the comments here. Has helped me decide to hold off on upgrading from Pro 2014. Will stick with Pro 2014 for now and continue to dabble with Reality/Lux and Daz Studio/iRay.

Been following this thread with great interest. Unfortunately.for me..the renders still look like Poser. Show them to others who immediately recognise them as "Poser." No real difference in outcome than the earlier versions of the last few years. Figures still have those store dummy expressions, poses and textures. I was hoping for a more organic/realistic look or at least some improvement. Hate to be so down on this release and on the "superfly". I was really looking forward to some quantum leap I guess.

As long as people keep using made-for-Poser models, the renderer is not going to matter. Have a look at this, which is not a Poser model and not made with any of the techniques of our typical vendors -- rendered by me in SuperFly.

--- back to lurking.

Here's a SuperFly render I did to make use of SnarlyGribbly's EZSkin3 (on the facehugger). No postwork, only jpg-ing for the web.

"Been following this thread with great interest. Unfortunately.for me..the renders still look like Poser. Show them to others who immediately recognise them as "Poser." No real difference in outcome than the earlier versions of the last few years. Figures still have those store dummy expressions poses and textures. I was hoping for a more organic/realistic look or at least some improveme Hate to be so down on this release and on the "superfly". I was really looking forward to some quantum leap I guess."

I agree completely!! most of the "superfly" renders I see in these threads offer ZERO incentive for upgrading for better realism as they look like firefly renders by & large.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "As long as people keep using made-for-Poser models, the renderer is not going to matter . Have a look at this, which is not a Poser model and not made with any of the techniques of our typical vendors -- rendered by me in SuperFly"

Nice render BB,and I agree...... But poser users will continue to use only models made for poser. You used the now famous "Emily "head scan mesh for your render.

http://www.cgchannel.com/2015/06/download-digital-human-labs-digital-emily-2-model.

lovely.. bloody good on you mate :-) But people here want an>>entire figure<< that bends perfectly at the joints, has massive vendor support and backward compatibility to poser 6, skin shader node presets and rigging that wont break any compatibility with their existing hoard of clothing content.

so admonishments ,such as yours above, do not really mean anything to the average poser user.

I've been playing with ezskin for snarly's render challenge. I'm getting used to the grainy renders but I'm still trying to find postwork ways to get rid of them, so any tips are more than welcome :) Here's my renders.

How do Layers look

Tracybee posted at 12:46AM Sun, 27 March 2016 - #4254562

Been following this thread with great interest. Unfortunately.for me..the renders still look like Poser. Show them to others who immediately recognise them as "Poser." No real difference in outcome than the earlier versions of the last few years. Figures still have those store dummy expressions, poses and textures. I was hoping for a more organic/realistic look or at least some improvement. Hate to be so down on this release and on the "superfly". I was really looking forward to some quantum leap I guess.

I've just been catching up with this thread, and I'm astonished at this.

There is an obvious quantum leap in the technology of a physics-based render engine over Firefly. You don't need to compare renders to understand that. In fact, you shouldn't. Renders presented by people who are still learning how to use this technology (myself included) are the worst kind of evidence on which to base any decision.

The fact is that a PBR like Superfly makes it much easier to construct material shaders that are physically correct and look realistic in a wide range of lighting conditions, without the complexity and all the artifices that are necessary to achieve something approximating the same result using Firefly. If the renders and shaders you see don't demonstrate the differences, it's generally because the user doesn't (yet) know either how to do it, or how to effectively demonstrate it.

IsaoShi posted at 2:39AM Sun, 27 March 2016 - #4262784

... If the renders and shaders you see don't demonstrate the differences, it's generally because the user doesn't (yet) know either how to do it, or how to effectively demonstrate it.

IsaoShi is right. I only do realistic renders occasionally myself, but Superfly is definitely more capable in rendering in a realistic style. I mostly do semi-anime' style:

Lightcasting fiery refractive ghost effect (with LightPath node ambient response boost); this is Hivewire's horse and Sharkey's Angelyna wings, using a horse pose by Laurie (CWRW); the grass and trees are by Esha, the enviro is the P11 construct.

bagginsbill posted at 8:39AM Sun, 27 March 2016 - #4254634

As long as people keep using made-for-Poser models, the renderer is not going to matter. Have a look at this, which is not a Poser model and not made with any of the techniques of our typical vendors -- rendered by me in SuperFly.

--- back to lurking.

When I grow Up I want to be just like bagginsbill

bagginsbill posted at 7:22PM Sun, 27 March 2016 - #4254634

As long as people keep using made-for-Poser models, the renderer is not going to matter. Have a look at this, which is not a Poser model and not made with any of the techniques of our typical vendors -- rendered by me in SuperFly.

--- back to lurking.

Wishing I could make stuff look that good

Nudity checked for those who can see what is not there.. Funny how that works isn't it....

Lit with envirosphere, no additional lights.

Pauline Advanced render...

Hi,

A lot of improvments with SR3 :D

Anthanasius posted at 10:51AM Tue, 29 March 2016 - #4263115

Hi,

A lot of improvments with SR3 :D

Dang only have box version .O well i'll have to do with subpar. O and the render looks awesome

722 posted at 3:00PM Tue, 29 March 2016 - #4263180

Dang only have box version .O well i'll have to do with subpar.

Even a physical (box) version would come with DLM (DownLoad Manager); install it, run it, and it will get the updates.

[shvrdavid]

Lit with envirosphere, no additional lights.

This seems to be some kind of mantra; but if it lights your figure in a way that is at odds with the environment, what is the point of it?

I'm not trying to be mean... I just think that 'envirosphere only' lighting is neither (in principle) something worth aiming for; nor (in practice) something that necessarily gives good results.

Speaking for myself, whenever I've said that, it was to establish one or both of two points:

1. No lighting trickery... as basic as it gets
2. That it is possible to light scene from the environment (a theme that constantly arises, hence the 'mantra' response). Other than that, I agree there is nothing special about it. I find it quite limiting and rarely use it.

Rendered with two area lights only.

IsaoShi posted at 12:00PM Fri, 01 April 2016 - #4262784

Tracybee posted at 12:46AM Sun, 27 March 2016 - #4254562

Been following this thread with great interest. Unfortunately.for me..the renders still look like Poser. Show them to others who immediately recognise them as "Poser." No real difference in outcome than the earlier versions of the last few years. Figures still have those store dummy expressions, poses and textures. I was hoping for a more organic/realistic look or at least some improvement. Hate to be so down on this release and on the "superfly". I was really looking forward to some quantum leap I guess.

I've just been catching up with this thread, and I'm astonished at this.

There is an obvious quantum leap in the technology of a physics-based render engine over Firefly. You don't need to compare renders to understand that. In fact, you shouldn't. Renders presented by people who are still learning how to use this technology (myself included) are the worst kind of evidence on which to base any decision.

The fact is that a PBR like Superfly makes it much easier to construct material shaders that are physically correct and look realistic in a wide range of lighting conditions, without the complexity and all the artifices that are necessary to achieve something approximating the same result using Firefly. If the renders and shaders you see don't demonstrate the differences, it's generally because the user doesn't (yet) know either how to do it, or how to effectively demonstrate it.

I agree with your comments but I have to say I do not come to the same conclusion as you, not at this point in time anyway. Yes the new render engine is almost certainly got more potential and the people using it are only just learning how to use the new engine but what else are people going to use to base their buying decision on. Unless you are very rich spending a large sum of money just to be able to use a new render engine to produce what you can produce now is not a great idea. BB has shown the potential of the new engine but BB has an exceptional skill that are not matched by the average user. Until the average users can see other users producing renders better than Firefly, on a regular basis, many will hold of on upgrading.

That is not to rubbish the efforts of the users here, but most of then also admit they want better from the new engine. I value their efforts and even more their wish to share and help others but I too will hold off for the time being based on what I have seen so far but that does not mean I will stick at 2014.

As an aside it might also mean that the concern over the library will have dissipated when I do finally upgrade.

I'm beginning to move to scene compositions that are built with a "Physics Based" render engine in mind. I've begun to make greater use of both Reality and Superfly in some testing. Here is a quickly constructed Superfly rendered interior scene (Title: NewHomeForBaby), with just some default items and a single window constrained light source.

Hi !

Indoor Lightning, no light, only EnvSphere, all shaders are cycle, Extreme High Quality render settings with 10 samples, 99 secs on a GTX 980 Ti

Test render using the tutorial on caustic's here at render.. 3hr render.

Teyon posted at 7:57AM Thu, 07 April 2016 - #4263617

Rendered with two area lights only.

Looking good

Thanks.:-)

Teyon posted at 5:37AM Fri, 08 April 2016 - #4264625

Thanks.:-)

is it my imagination or i'm i seeing a very slight chromatic abberation effect ? ...possible with poser cameras ?

artdude41 posted at 6:48AM Fri, 08 April 2016 - #4264672

Teyon posted at 5:37AM Fri, 08 April 2016 - #4264625

Thanks.:-)

is it my imagination or i'm i seeing a very slight chromatic abberation effect ? ...possible with poser cameras ?

You are seeing one but no, that little bit was added when I added the rendered in poser symbol. I simply used Photoshop's lens correction filter before posting. If I render in superfly I always do this so it matches with toolbar or quick suite or substance painter. :-) I have, however, asked the team if they could consider giving us options like that.

Teyon I love the label. hehehehehe

Teyon posted at 7:12AM Fri, 08 April 2016 - #4264673

artdude41 posted at 6:48AM Fri, 08 April 2016 - #4264672

Teyon posted at 5:37AM Fri, 08 April 2016 - #4264625

Thanks.:-)

is it my imagination or i'm i seeing a very slight chromatic abberation effect ? ...possible with poser cameras ?

You are seeing one but no, that little bit was added when I added the rendered in poser symbol. I simply used Photoshop's lens correction filter before posting. If I render in superfly I always do this so it matches with toolbar or quick suite or substance painter. :-) I have, however, asked the team if they could consider giving us options like that.

that would great . Its a little feature i add all the time to my renders aswell ,very subtle detail . but really gives a great photographic effect ...., would bloom also be possible ?

Thanks gang and I can ask. Maybe knowing the users want it to will push the idea forward.