I really don't care what the Russians do.

There are some of my images on there to. I just find it childish that they congratulate each other on what wonderful images they have created. You and I know that they couldn't create jack shit between them. We have the satisfaction of knowing that. I just laugh at them.

May be my image will end up on the wall of a grubby flat in Moscow, and they can get some pleasure out of it while downing a few bottles of vodka, beating up the kids and raping granny.

Mind you, if any of these appear in the UK, I will get cross. If they appear in the US, with your new laws, it will be the same as Russia.

The answer is quite straightforward.

C4D has no concept of real world units - if you have a model 200m by 200m and change the units, all C4D does is change the suffix. 

Vue on the other hand does know about real world units and scales accordingly. If you have set your Vue units to Meters then a C4D object of 200 units will come in at 200m. If on the other hand your Vue units are set to cm, the same C4D model will come in at 2m.

If your models are importing into vue at a very small size, just change the units in Vue to a bigger one.

Looks like they tried writing their own forum software......

Quote - ....In the RGB illumination model if something is grey or white depend on the illumination intensity.
In some way that I cannot explain, human eyes follow the physical model and not the RGB illumination model, and this has nothing to do with rods and cones.
If you know the incomming energy and measure the reflected energy, you are able to find the absortion coefficient and so, know how grey is an object.
Our eyes receive the reflected energy, so we know its intensity, but how our brain gets the missing parameter that is the incoming energy to complete the calculation???????

The missing parameter is called "White Balance". A lot of cameras can be adjusted for this but your brain does it automatically.

In your example, a piece of white paper in 50% illumination is reflecting the same amount of light as a 50% gray sheet in 100% light. Also the colour balance of the light can change and the paper would appear to change color.

The magic bit is that your brain knows that the paper is white and readjusts the illumination and colour balance so that the paper still looks white. A camera can do this using exposure controls and white balance (you tell the camera what is white and it adjusts all the other colours accordingly)

Quote -
That said ... there are people who put a lot of work into their NVIATWAS images, and I hope they get every hit they desire, cropped thumbnail and content advisories notwithstanding.  Just not from me, and I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to look over a ton of those images in miniature just to get to the images I would like to see.

Don't see how you can say that. If you have the nudity filter set to off, you will still have to look over  a ton of those images in miniature but you won't know they are missable unless you click on them.

Quote - The simple fact is you won't see a nude thumbnail here, whether or not you have the Nudity filter set.  This happened because enough people didn't bother to set the filter and then complained about the thumbnails showing things that weren't appropriate for either a: work or b: kids.

I realise your opinion that "Cropped and altered thumbnails are basically a deception" is valid for you but face the fact that you don't control the site and most of us just try to get by.

A lot of us have posted our reasons for cropping thumbnails.  They don't apply to you, of course, but they do apply to us.  For you to issue a blanket statement like the one I quoted is far from tolerant.  My impression, and this is MY impression of your statement, is that you want to convince every artist here that what we've been doing for years is wrong simply because you say so.

This will be my last post on this subject and I will no longer receive the e-bots about it because, patently, no-one is going to answer your question to your satisfaction.  I suggest you read the TOS for Renderosity as concerns the thumbnails.  This is why many of us crop them and why many rely on the system generated ones.

Just set the nudity filter at your end  then.

The deception is there whether you agree or not. If I click on a thumbnail of a face and get a T & A  image I wouldn't normally have clicked on, I have been deceived.

So nobody can answer my simple question?

I've read the TOS and I don't understand the logic when there is a perfectly adequate filter already in place.

Cropping thumbnails out of choice is one thing, being forced to is another.

Still not got an answer to my question.

If I have not set the "No nudity" filter why should I be upset by nude thumbnails. If I set the "No Nudity flag, they are all gone, so no problem.

I would rather see an enormous boobs thumbnail and pass it by than click on an eye or a toe and then be presented with a full sized image of something I didn't really want to look at.

Why can this not be achieved?

Cropped and altered thumbnails are basically a deception.

Quote - I like to stop by here at work, and the 'content advisory' thumbnails keep me from having to look for new and renumerative careers..;)

So why not switch on "No Nudity" when at work?

I've posted this question before but either I didn't get an answer or it's me being dense.

If I tick the "No Nudity" option , I wouldn't want to see a nude picture or a thumbnail. Period.

If I dont tick the "No Nudity" option, why would I be offended by a nude thumbnail?

The answer must be that the majority of people out there only like nudes in hi resolution, not thumbnail size. I can't figure that one out.

The current policy creates a situation where the thumbnail shows a nice face - click on it and you get the monster tits. Waste of bandwidth. If you are looking for monster tits, you have to open every picture. Again, waste of bandwidth.

I myself have had a slight disagreement over what constitutes nudity but that I would have thought should revolve around whether or not the nudity flag should be placed. Now here, I have no problem accepting the decision of the moderators but the thumbnail shouldn't really need to be changed.

I still haven't had a sensible answer to this question:

If I tick "No Nudity". I would not expect to see any picture, thumbnail or otherwise, that contained nudity.

If I don't tick "No nudity", why would I be offended by a nude thumbnail?

Seems an easy thing to do but this site has made a dogs breakfast of it.

Seems there are folks out there who don't like looking at a nude thumbnail but like to look at the full monty in hi-res. Why try to cope with perverse people?

Quote - Hi Steve,

Your image hasn't been removed. It's been put into holding.
Your image thumbnail is of someone's backside. Clearly defined as nudity in the guidelines.

1. The message you received from Jani clearly states her email address for you to respond to. Alternatively, in your site mail box, just press "Reply" to reply, or from your email program, press the "Reply" button.
2. Here is a tutorial on how to make a thumbnail:
   http://www.renderosity.com/mod/tutorial/index.php?tutorial_id=1570
   Jani also gave you instructions in her message on how to get the replacement thumbnail to her.
3. Arguing isn't compulsory.

No one can seem to answer this question  - if someone has set the "No Nudity filter", why are thumbnails containing nudity being shown to them. Isn't this a fault with the set up of the galleries?

They aren't. (Already discussed in the pages of this thread. Or simply switch on your nudity filter to see for yourself.)

If you want your image deleted then please reply to Jani to that effect. Thanks.

1. I read the message then didn't know where to find it again. I have never used this facility before. I was asking where in the site are the messages held. Never mind - I finally figured it out myself.

2. When I did find it, I cannot see how to attach an image to a message. How is this done?

3. How do I alter my image to suit the guidelines. It says I cannot airbrush it. Is totally black allowed? Can I put text on a black background?

4. Yes is is of a backside but then so is the example given. That has a red swimsuit on, mine is in deep black shadow. You can't see anything.

5. The guidelines don't say how big a thumbnail should be. Of course I know how to make one, it was the specifications I was after.

6. If the "nudity off" filter works as you say it does, what is the point of all this?

All in all very unhelpful and unfriendly.

I have just had an image removed from the gallery because in someones opinion it contains nudity. In my opinion it doesn't.

Any way they can leave it removed as I have no idea how to 1) reply to the message or 2) create a different thumbnail and post it or 3) argue the toss with small minded people.

No one can seem to answer this question  - if someone has set the "No Nudity filter", why are thumbnails containing nudity being shown to them. Isn't this a fault with the set up of the galleries?

Quote -
No - we said minor bloody wounds. Not half-severed appendages or disembowellings.

So what is a minor bloody wound? Who decides that ? If we have a definition in advance it saves a lot of problems.

Just to get this straight, I can show a half severed breast with lots of blood as long as there is no nipple or aureola, and as long as the knife that did it was not shown, Bloody guts hanging out of a stomach are OK cause they are not sexual and won't upset the kiddies. Thumbnails like this are OK?

Quote - > Quote -

ps If I was an American I could probably sue Rendo for some sort of defamation. Like the lady who spilt MacDonalds coffee on herself and sued because it was ....  "hot"??? But I'm not (hot or American)

 

And, according to the merits of the case, she was most definitely in the right. (First of all, she wasn't driving, she was a passenger, and the car had stopped to let her open the the lid of the coffee mug to put milk in.) McDonalds was serving the coffee at a good 12 degrees C above the normal, hot enough, in fact, to cause 2nd degree burns. People sometimes spill coffee on themselves, and people who serve coffee should be aware of the fact, and not serve coffee that is not only too hot to drink, but dangerously hot. McDonalds was serving the coffee so hot because it was, in some way, more convenient for them. They were not only aware of the burn potential, but had settled out of court in a number of cases.

How stupid drinking hot coffee in a car. Why not stick to cans of beer like the rest of us careful drivers. Can't burn yourself with beer.