The image has nothing to do with this post. Just a Marilyn-ish morph and Text for Vicki I am working on. I hate not to have anything for ya to look at. I have been making products for a long time now, but something is missing. In al the thousands of great gallery posts there is something not there that should be. But I don't kknow what it is? Is it a color, a focus, perspective or subject? Does anyone else feel this way- that there is something inatangible but conspicuously missing in our Poser efforts? Mabey it is the renderer. Who knows. Any ideas? Anton

Hmm, you want to put your finger on something intangible that is missing? chuckle Don't look in poser efforts to find out what is missing in poser efforts. Look at poser efforts next to other medium efforts then maybe you'll find it. I don't know the answer, but I agree something is missing in MY poser efforts :)

Sometimes I think it's gravity, sometimes I think it's fluidity ... Good topic for thought, Anton. Lisa

What is missing? Reality. Now don't get me wrong. I have seen work that comes pretty damned close but close is not quite good enough. Take the best of these images and then composite a real person into the image and the difference becomes immediately obvious. The reason I say that this might be the missing factor is that for some reason the goal in 3D appears to be the pursuit of photorealism. Personally I think this is incredibly limiting but who can argue with what people want? Still, if this is indeed what people seek then failing to achieve it would definitely make one feel something is missing. I do not think this is peculiar to Poser but common amongst all such programs. As I said, I have seen some spectacular work. But when I step outside and actually compare it to the real world... well, it doesn't. However, if you are speaking about an artistic something that might be missing that is an altogether different thing. Even more than my above comment, what follows is highly opinionated. When I look at the majority of work I see only a thing. That thing might be a mountain or a flower or a temple Vickie. But in most cases it is little more than a rendition so my reaction is "Nice but so what?" What I fail to see is a reason for that picture's existence. What is the artist" trying to communicate? What emotion is being expressed? If the image evokes no other reaction from me than "pretty" then I consider it to be ultimately empty. Some very well done work falls into this category because I do not perceive art, only craftsmanship. And they are not the same thing. I expect this is going to be a highly unpopular opinion but please understand that it is only that- an opinion- and nothing more. As such I will voice it but have no intention of pursuing the pointless exercise of defending it. We see what we see. - Jack Valero

Holographic display units? :)

I dunno... I always feel the sense of "hyperreality" a little too much... Things just aren't real, they are too perfect.. colors to vivid.. whatever combination of things conspire to create the effect its what I always notice the most - it never looks like a real photograph, it nevers looks like a traditional piece of art. But maybe there isn't anything wrong with that.. maybe this just has to stand on its own and be accepted as such. Anz

Jack I don't think you have unleashed anything controversal. The point about emotion or lack of is well put. I often compare render to reality and have notices some limitations to rendering. -Resolution in the real world is molecular and is always better than screen res. :) -In the real world blurry and out-of-focus are not the same thing. -Renders lack atmosphere. Haze, fog, radiosity and ambience are often missing. Mabey being too familiar with poser means wanting something new.

I don't know, maybe alot of what we see is people mastering the tool and not yet going to the full potential. It's tied into the what is art conversation that goes round and round here. If realism is the measure, then there are hints of it. For myself, realism isn't what is all about. It's expression. If everyone keeps claiming it isn't art, then you get less. By the way. She looks like Debbie Reynolds from the Unsinkable Molly Brown.

No Monkey butlers. ;-)

Lisa, the idea of gravity is good. Renders do have a weightless quality that get's old quick. I read in an article recently a quote from a 3d artist who said, "once photorealism is achieved people want something 'unreal'".

Hmmmmm. Chocolate?

Attached Link: http://www.galerie-dorsay.com

This Joan Marti painting strikes a cord with Lisa's comment about gravity. But it isn't photoreal in anyway.

I read an article recently that said photorealism is on the way out and a more artistic approach to CG is the next big thing in 3D. It might have been the same one. Looking at it from the photorealism perspective, I agree with the points you've listed in post 7, Anton. I would also add that Poser people's bodies don't move correctly. There's no sag or flow of flesh over the skeleton. You rarely see anybody do a good job of showing muscular strain. Vicki seems to be able to lift a huge sword without tensing her biceps and to dance without relaxing. Also, nobody seems to sweat, at least not in a realistic way. I agree absolutely that most of the Poser pictures here don't have anything much to say. I'd count most of my own in that category, but then I don't pretend to be an artist. Artisan is a word I much prefer for myself.

Static versus dynamic composition?

I think it's french fries. Nothing is ever really complete without fries.

Biggest thing I miss in Poser art is Dirt! I'm quite serious; I've yet to see clutter, grunge, realistic USAGE portrayed in any poser renders with out a lot of post. Even if you get a decent coroded texture on a prop, 99% of the time it's in a squeaky-clean, untouched-by-mortal-mud environment. Anyone comes up with a decent Poser version of DirtReyes (I think that's the product in MAX?) would have a happy happy customer in me.

Attached Link: http://www.ictechnology.com/Animation/Rem_Main.htm

Well I looked up that dirt PLug-In. I want Poser to have this stuff. :(

neurocyber, you may be on to something. There are a few postings in the gallery where there is some real dynamic action. These stand out. It's one of the things that Poser can do rather well. - JimX

Texture/bumpmaps, even if it's unrealistic, imparts a 3dimensional presence to the image so that it's almost like you can reach out and touch it. Dirt is right up there with that too. With out texture/bumpmaps images seem flat and with out energy.

Spark of life and a gleam in the characters eye that sais, "I may be just sitting here but I'm real."

leather-guy has the right idea everything in poser is too crisp. Hopefully poser 5 will have depth of field focus and specularity maps. As far as the artistic end of things it's not about the medium it's about the artist and his talent. Just as there are good and bad paintings and varied levels of photography, sculpture, and architecture we have the same levels here. Some of the art here is very moving. Keep in mind the things that are amazing and unique only seem that way when compared to the mountains of things that are common and dull.

I think that gravity and fluidity are two good suggestions. Also dirt, or chaos. I would add asymetry.

All these Ideas are great, but I must add that I would like to see a collision detection for poser, It could add realistic touchs between 2 poser figures. Something that It could be a great adition is the posibility to add a good fur/hair plugin that really works with Poser, and maybe if it is not too much to ask the ability to export that hai as points or polys to other aplication :) Another thing that I belive poser has serious limitations is the rendering of reflection/refraction light physics I know that's part of other kind of software like Bryce, but I bet it is very frustrating for people who only owns poser to try to achieve that kind of effects.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=152976

I personally think it's humor. Legeume is throwing humor at us, but he's bludgeoning us with it, and with images that contain items that may be unsettling. Me? I'm an old looney-tunes fan. Yeah, the humor was kinda crude, there, but they pulled it off with class. The link above is to a humorous image I did, which is potentially the start of a whole series of Wile E Coyote like attempts at vengeance... Too many people come to this site to surf the gallery and get their jollies looking at nekkid chicks. It's true. And you sometimes have to use nudity here to get your message seen. Sad, but true.

Ooohhh... nekkid chicks... Just for the fun of it here's an old quickie I did in reaction to such things. - Jack

Humor! So true.

1. Phoenix, looking at your render instantly made me think - lighting. Really realistic or otherwise convincing lighting is INCREDIBLY difficult to achieve. I work as a video photographer quite frequently and I spend most of my time getting the lighting right so I won't have to 'fix it in the mix'. And Poser is not exactly known for the the most convincing rendering or lighting - this is the main reason why a lot of people prefer to render in Bryce, Vue, Max etc. 2. I agree with leather-guy. Dirt, indeed. And rough edges. And just a little depth of field. 3. By the way Phoenix, that face morph was lovely!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=Don

Credibily Quotient: I have been making a living as a graphic and fine artist for 30 years. I have been published, sold, recognized, and awarded (both honors and money). I have woked in traditional studio media (paints, prints, graphics, and sculpture) and in Poser for the last few years. My response: 3D programs and especially Poser are unique media. It compares with other digital and traditional art only as an image making tool. One will not get an oil painting out of Poser 4 or Poser 44. It is what it is. It will improve and change and become more realistic and more fun, but it will remain a separate and unique medium... and style. Approach it that way. Use its uniqueness and limitations to an advantage somehow. Feature them, rather than hide them. Exult in them. Poser is a true ART medium, as are oil, ink, and clay. Poser figures, textures, props, lights, and such, are all Raw Materials. How they are put together is what matters. Picasso put a bicycle seat and handlebars together and called it a bull's head (sculpture) and it hangs in a museum. Raw materials... What I think is missing in Poser art is cohesion. Subject matter aside... very rarely do I see Poser figures set in a background that matches. It does not have to look realistic, it has to look like it goes together. Most look like a stylized drawing pasted onto a photo... just doesn't look right. No cohesion. Perhaps the various background and world/setting programs and props have more capabilities than I usually see displayed. But, most renderings just look odd. I very rarely ever use much background, preferring to focus on the figures, lights, and props. There's a lot that can be done with just that. See some examples in my gallery. No nekid chix... but pictures that tell a story. Stories are another thing lacking in much Poser art. One remedy for cohesion: Try the Poser sketch render tool. It can really blend object and ground into an integrated looking surface. It will render over backgrounds and background images. It really makes things go together.

Patience...And your close eye on my works in the near future! = )

Art. We have a lot of illustration, a lot of playing with the props, a lot of product renders,... but very little art. Even the images which win contests or appear in the calendars and magazines seldom grab us viscerally the way art does. This is not a fault of the tool. Cro-Magnon Man with some spittle and soot managed to create images which stir our souls today. It is not even the fault of the people here. They are creating what they want to create, and often doing a very good job of it, and they are rewarded for doing it well. It is not a "fault", really. It is a "lack". Carolly

Technically I would say Posers renderer isnt up to the job. Ive just decided to give up on ever trying to do an "out-of-the-box" Poser render. I will put it through some heavy processing and repainting afterwards, never mind what they say about Pure Poser in the gallery. A picture needs grain, light and dark, shadow, depth, focal length and character. Poser cant do it, it just isnt up to it. People need also to make more use of lighting, more coloured lights in a scene, more variety, more bounced and backlights. Get Jeremy Birns book on lighting. Another intangible is character, nobody ever seems to spend any time on making a character "Live". No wrinkles or frowns, no sweat or strain. In the gallery there are pictures of Warriors fighting all manner of Demons and they have an expression like theyre playing Golf. Im still trying to make something I consider worth putting in the gallery but when Im ready it will be something Ive really worked on. Whether it is any good or not well that is for others to decide, I will know at least Ive tried. I dont even think realism is what people should aim for in this stuff, just something with dynamics.

Hey Routledge, what's that golf expression look like? Frustration?? :] FishNose

Its the EYES!!!!!

the rim of the eyelids where the lash line and skin meets the pink wet inner lid,
and that little pink area in the inside corner near the nose bridge
and that lack of a realistic wet coating on the eyeball itself!!
in poser and many other high end programs it always looks FAKE!! very FAKE!!

sorry to post this image again but these guys seem to have captured it

using MAYA of course!!!

I'd say it's a number of things. It's the reason I usually do more whimsical bordering anime-ish renders in poser, because poser cannot achieve the realism. I have several ideas for solutions to the various problems, but you'll please forgive if I don't share them here. :o)

Well here is my partial list of stuff that could increase poser realism. If anyone wants to run with any of these be my guest: Skin - Skin in the real world is translucent and slightly reflective. The translucency can't be solved because with no flesh underneath to convay color, etc it woulden't be the same. The reflective quality though could be mimiced by reflect maps for the skin. I have been toying arounf with it and am pretty close to showing the results to you all. So far it is looking better. Facial/Body Asymetry - No one is perfect.... People aren't the same physically from left to right. No matter who you are, from Joe Shmoo to a super model, the left side of your face is never the same as the right. I think subconciously we all know this, and seeing a perfect 3d model automatically makes us think it is "off" Eyes - Cake's real eyes are the closest to being real looking that I have seen yet. They can add alot to a render. Bumps/Surfaces Bump maps should be different then just a greyscale copy of the texture map. If a seperate bump map is used, with acutal skin bumps, you can add alot to a render. Radiosity Lighting The new light scripts at Daz for Pro Pack are a great solution that that one. I actually installed Pro Pack (Which I have owned since it came out but hated it.... until now) to use these. Once you know how to use them, they really do make a much more professional looking render come out of Poser. I am sure there is alot more we can all do to bring Poser up to the next notch. Look at all of the advancements so far... anyone remember early P4 renders???? I have a few nasty oens I did somewhere I keep around to remind me what not to do ;)

We were watching Chocolat on DVD this weekend and the voice-over version with the director, production designer, etc. (those things are a great way to get insights into film making, btw). I was noticing the huge difference in the look of particular scenes in the film compared with the footage of the scene being filmed. Attributed it to film vs. video. But during the commentary they joked a bit about breathing and the smoke machine that someone had running so much to affect the lighting. Reminded me again of the importance all the lighting and camera tricks that top professionals put into their work. We don't know what goes into the look and sound of all these things we see, but our eyes, ears and brains are well acquainted with them. It's not just the real world that we measure against. Anton, stylish character, but weren't Marilyn's eyes bigger?

Give it a hit from your Spice Weasel. BAM!!

I think one thing that is missing, at least in my renders, is true emotion seen in the character's faces. I agree with Routledge in that. I see lots of subtle hints of true emotion, but not anything that overwhelms you with a sense of feeling. Then again, maybe I'm not fiddling with those dials enough. :)

Here's a render I did last Christmas that I think shows good emotion. I turned the dials for each side of the face subtley asymmetric to increase the realism and, consequently, the feeling, but emotion carries across more than just the face. I've seen other works out there that really create "the mood" as well, some more realistic than my somewhat anime-ish elf here. This is titled "An Elf's Plea"

Your elf really does express feeling. I guess emotion doesn't come through convincingly in my own work. When trying to show overwhelming mental pain or anguish, everything falls flat for me. Needy to study more faces. :)

The method I use for expression is the method animators use and that is to have a mirror to look in and make faces in.

Complexity-enviroments,expressions,lighting. how often do you ever see flat ground. Just about as often as you see someone who's face is a mirror on each side. Never. mine included

well, I have a friend who, despite some of the incredible realism in some poser pieces says that all digital art lacks "soul". Something in the eyes. He says that the eyes are empty and vacant. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes I don't but his comments always keep me creating. I'm determined to make something he sees "soul" in LOL :)

Maybe photorealistic texture creation support... = )

Item in today's news: ........ AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands A gunman apparently upset with the quality of wide-screen television grabbed as many as 40 hostages Monday in the tallest building in the Dutch capital, the former headquarters of Philips Electronics. Police were negotiating with the man, reported by some to be armed with a machine gun and explosives. After three hours of talks, six women were seen leaving the 35-story Rembrandt Tower office complex. ........ I hope none of you have quite reached this level of dissatisfaction with Poser's visual qualities!

ARMADILLOS!

I dont use poser. I'm a photographer, 2d-er, and startingg up as a zbrusher. One thing I notice about Poser work is that it does strive for realism. A little tidbit. Either Pepsi or coca Cola (I cant remember which, or if Im even on the rioght companies, but the following story is utter fact) hired some company to do a commercial for them, and they wanted it all in CG. The result was a comepletely realistic character, fawking stunningly real. The company never ran the ad, because the gimmick of having the computer character was gone. No one could see that it was fake. In that case, what the hell was the point of making a commercial with a fake character that must've taken FOREVER to make, when they could've shot the commercial in a day with a real person. Me thinks if you want to go for the utmost in realism, the best way to do it is to pick up a camera, and shoot. Just like Poser, you can add your own props and whatnot if need be. The lighting is hands on, and the dirt and grime is real. I second the notion that the next wave for CG work be less about realism, and more about new experimental styles. Pixar has nailed it down pat. They make the most unreal characters, sets, and movies, and they are recognized as the best in the world. I don't care what anyone says about Final Fantasy's realism, I don't knbow a single person who saw the movie who for one second forgot that these were computer generated characters. No matter how realistic they were, they were still, very obviously, fake. Think about it, once true realism is achieved, if it ever is, everything that had been accomplished over the years could have been done exactly the same way with a simple 35mm camera. I'm not speaking about special effects btw here, just the characters and whatnot. also, just 2cents, don't mean to step on anyone's toes here.

Seriously, though, PhoenixRising has hit on something that's bugged me for a long time. And I think one of the major things missing is VARIETY. There are a few images that are really stand-outs in the Poser gallery. There are a few really outstanding pinups, and, though many of you might think I'm loathe to admit it, there are even some really great naked Vicki in a temple images. There are a VERY few images in the Poser gallery that are just WEIRD; those are my favorites. The ones that show what's in the artist's mind, and not just a depiction of some subject matter they saw on TV or the cover of a fantasy paperback. That's what I really get off on. Seeing something I've never seen before. If any of you wants to see that unnamed something that's missing from the Poser gallery, go look in the 2D Gallery...because that's where you'll find it.

Average lighting, lack of subsurface scattering for skin, and more complex shaders for other things; these things are going to also produce hard edges, clearly phong shading. Its possible however (and one would hope) that since Poser 5 is being planned with a renderman compliant renderer, that they will include quite a few complex shaders, or possibly have the shader architecture open, allowing it to use current renderman shaders. This would allow for custom surfaces to be made to fake the above mentioned effects, or to add anisotrophy, or rough diffuse surfaces. The rest could be scene content wise. But everyone has a different idea of whats good or bad, and so that's more subjective a topc that actual rendering solutions. Could be lack of scenic details, lack of lighting that reflects the actual ennviroment accurately, or even poor or undramatic camera angles.

In visual art, people's personalities come out in the style in which they draw or paint. In Poser, since you're dealing with mannequin-like figures, the individuality is lost. I agree with the comment about fluidity. Poser figures are rather cold and stiff -- they don't actually move, they just get posed in a still position, so what you lose is the sweep of the gamrent, the sweep of the hair, the real way in which clothing folds around living flesh. Paintings and drawings have a kinetic energy that makes their still images move. Mike

So, Phoenix, did you ever get your answer?