This is a picture of the camera with the back off, and the test target in place. I've done a little postwork on the photo to emphasise the lines -- they're on the side of the plastic facing the camera, and don't otherwise show up well.

Boots? Check the components are the same -- toes, feet, leg. Mike and Vicky, or the same generation, should match there. It doesn't matter about the feet and toes of the figure -- they can be made invisible, so poke-through isn't a problem. Maybe use a transmap to make most of the lower leg invisible. A little tweaking of scale and taper could do the rest. Rather than re-modelling the whole boot, consider a morph. I've used some of these tricks to get a Vicky dress to 'fit' Posette. For a single image, there's all sort of tweaks to try, the equivalent of gaffer-tape and safety pins on a real-world fashion shoot.

I've found a camera can lead to the photographer feeling somehow apart from his surroundings, which can be dangerous. And somebody with a camera who looks like they know what they're doing can sometimes get into places they maybe shouldn't. On general safety grounds, I wouldn't do what this guy did. I know enough to know I could walk into something hazardous.

That's a pretty good example, Pakled. It doesn't look as if I shall get my effort finished. I got distracted by dentistry, birthdays, and getting an old camera lens to work properly [kicks excuse generator].

Most of the taking of the photo is the same; the divergence comes after you store the image, whether on film or in a memory card. And it's possible to shoot on film, and then get high-resolution digital images from the negative. If I want reprints, it may be better to scan and send in the datafile to a digital-print lab. On the other hand,a bit of knowledge about the other side, whatever the emphasis of the course, would be a good thing, The difference between screen and paper is a lot like the difference between a transparency and a print, and also different in some significant ways.

The current version has a nice simple interface which tells you what file it needs for the decode, since the info is stored in the .pcf -- you then have to find it with the browser/pick window. I suspect you might need the "original" version of the costume, whatever that is.

Attached Link: http://www.hogsoft.com/

I think it may be something to do with how the Poser 5 versions of the .cr2 are saved. Poser 5 stores each material/texturemap combination in two places, first in the same way as Poser 4, and then in the shader tree data for that material. What I think is happening is that the P4-compatible entry stores the full path -- ":Runtime:textures:etc:filename" The shader tree entry sometimes comes out as just ":filename" And that is what seems to break things. (Make up a .cr2 with some distinctively-named texture files, and have a look for the filenames with the search function of a good text editor.) I'm not sure why the save should be different. Looking at how a texture file is selected in the Material Room, it seems that there can be two different references for the same file in the picklist -- one with the path and one with just the filename. Maybe it depends which you pick? Using CorrectReference seems to cure a lot of the problems. If you don't have it, go to the link: the original free version is downloadable from the site's front page without any hassles. I'm not a 100% certain that I've nailed down the problem, but I think I have a partial answer now.

I think I may have got close to the cause. Poser 4 files were working fine, but not some Poser 5. So I did a comparison. Poser 4 doesn't use the Shader Tree system. Poser 5 does. And in Poser 5 a texture map is refeered to in at least two places, once in the section compatible with Poser 4, and once in the shader tree for that material. And there seems to be a difference in how the path/filename combination is stored. I strongly suspect the problem is in the Shader Tree, possibly in how Poser handles the path data for the file, but there may be other details I haven't found yet. And it's after midnight... Somebody else can worry about it now.

The change in the clouds doesn't help in comparing the two pics, and I have a feeling that there's a trace of barrel distortion in the RH pic, adding to the disturbing effect of the tight crop. Of the two pictures, I think the LH one is better. The RH one breaks the rules, but the results seems a little half-hearted. It doesn't manage to look more than just wrong.

Just to show a rough idea of what my UVmapping exercise can do. (The background was posted to the Photography Forum recently...)

And why do they always have to be blondes anyway?

---

I'm reluctant to pass on my re-mapped figure, even in a form which depends on the original mesh. As a freebie, it's advertising the paid-for version, and the UVmapping would turn it into competition.

Yes, I gather that the full, paid-for, version has a usable UVmap. As a learning process, disentagling the UP map for the free version was worthwhile. And the Lo-Res is a nice figure. I could see it being usable in some of the areas Poser Artist is aimed at, a sort of virtual Barbie. So when are we going to get a Ken :) (I don't think that's an entirely silly concept...)

The Windows version seems to work fine, but there's one problem under Win98. The MS Serif and MS Sans Serif fonts, two of the non-Truetype system fonts, are apparently buggy. I was able to Google for the files and download later versions, though this may not be strictly legal. Even so, it's an impressive product. Testing continues. Although there are UI choices which clash with my habits from other programs.

Maybe they're going to abolish the Platinum Club? Seriously, with the uncertainty, is it wise to join the PC?

If you think the stuff which pops out here is bad, don't visit Renderotica.

What can you get from Lo Res Staci? I've learnt something about using UVMapper to change the UV mapping of a figure....