This is an entirely off-the-wall question, but once it came into my mind I had to spit it out somewhere.... In the world of programming, productivity is generally measured by lines of code rather than by completion of applications or modules. An application can be a single-use throwaway or a world-changing system, but one "line" turns out to take about the same amount of thinking, trials, and debugging in any of the usual computer languages (C, Pascal, Basic, etc.) Is there an equivalent concept in the world of graphics? Clearly you can't use "one image", because completing one picture can take anywhere from a minute to a lifetime. But where else would you divide it? In Poser you could possibly multiply the number of figures by the number of animation frames, but that's highly specific. Do any such standards exist? If not, any thoughts as to what the "line" might be? Or is it just an impossible notion?

This is an interesting question and as a person who is not employed in the graphic arts industry I also would be interested in the reply to this.

Interesting Q, Ockham. here's mt 2 cents (two cents not being worth what they once were): If you want to think of art as an industry and not as... um... art, then I do believe it is quantified by numbers of images produced. How may bussiness cards, T-shirts, book jackets... that sorta thing. Art for the sake of art however, in my grand summation (take with grain of salt), is beyond quantification. Sure, one could live an entire existence as an artistic expression. I think it trancends numbers... Sorta like a mothers love for her child, can't be quantified.

Art for the sake of art however, in my grand summation (take with grain of salt), is beyond quantification. << I fully agree. But I wonder if any of the art we term "great" was produced for its own sake. The same applies to music and literature. Most of what we now consider classic was produced strictly for money, by people who thought more about productivity than about abstract principles. I can think of some notable exceptions: Van Gogh, Grandma Moses, and Solzhenitsyn produced great work because their nature gave them no choice but to paint or write. But those are exceptions. (Oh, and Imp'Rex: I did develop the script you wanted, but ran into a weird bug that seems to be inherent in the Python version that goes with Poser. So, unless and until I can work around that, the script will have to wait for Poser 5, which will attach a newer and less buggy Python version.) script works occasionally

. Most of what we now consider classic was produced strictly for money<< S'true. The rennisance was by and large feuled by commissonary work for the Papacy or nobles trying to stave of hellfire. Toulouse Lautrec did most of his works on table cloths to pay for his meal, or painting up the brothel furniture in lieu of rent. Picasso used to buy his groceries with signed cheques. No one ever cashed them. That Toulouse sure had a good thing goin'!

number of polygons?