As with any base figure, shape preferences can be modified... Eye size can even be just selecting each eye and using the Scale slider, the skin around the eye will follow suit.

There was a lot of struggle with his shoulders - it's the shape, it's complicated to make bend without adding a bunch of JCMs. We ultimately decided to compromise and not add extra JCMs to avoid giving clothing creators a bunch of nightmares 🤣

Now I'm worried - you don't like how he bends? 😔

I've tossed the idea at Tim for a possible wiki for Poser, so that we could organize information. Perhaps the community could help me annoy him into making it. LOL

moogal posted at 3:14 PM Sun, 13 October 2024 - #4490282

This part has been repeated so often that nearly everyone believes it. First off, that is like saying you have stolen every bit of art you have ever seen. Even if your memory were perfect and you could reproduce every image you have ever seen with perfect fidelity, would you say that merely looking at something constitutes theft?
But go back to the AI models. There was a big deal about this last year when, while attempting to stoke fear over generative AI, a group were able to generate an image that matched an image in the training data almost exactly. It would be nearly impossible for this to happen by random chance. Its is most likely that the group knew which image sets the AI had been trained on. That the group knew a specific image was contained in more than one set of images, and that the image's content had been tagged. So, by inputting the tags that this specific image contained and then describing its contents and composition specifically they were in fact able to recreate a strikingly similar image. But they were aided in that they knew the image had been used in training, that it had been used more than once, and they knew the tags it contained when constructing their prompt. For some, those factors do not matter as they did prove they could retrieve an image by constructing the right prompt. 
But it's simply not possible for even a 10GB model to contain every detail of every image it has been trained on when that image set was 100s of GB or more.
Also, not all unlicensed use is theft. Fair use law for example allows the use of trademarked characters and even the likenesses of real people for the purpose of parody. Mad magazine can put E.T. or Captain American on their cover without infringing because no reasonable person would confuse the parody with the original work. There is also the possibility that an artist is creating works for their own enjoyment, and are not trying to profit from their creation in any way.
So while I have the same concerns about how AI might be used as others, whether to compete with artists trying to make a living or in creating works that could be mistaken for those of a specific known or unknown artist, I don't think that should be a reason to limit the training data.
There is also the issue of companies such as Getty now owning (via buying other companies' libraries) images that were produced before these models even existed. We think about protecting artists' rights as noble, but so much of what we think we are protecting no longer belongs to those artists. Artists who allowed Marvel to own their work could do nothing to prevent Disney from acquiring the rights to their work by buying Marvel for example. It is companies like Disney who now exist primarily to collect and monetize IP that are most threatened by generative AI, and they want you to fear it too. It threatens their efforts to monopolize content creation.

No, the machine learned photo collage is not like a real person using reference. Go off and stop pretending that people disagree with you because "we don't understand".

A person needs permission to use parts of someone else's work to do a photo collage and the machines should need permission to be fed from someone's work. It's not true learning, it's algorythm parsing. No matter how many times people decide to call it "artificial INTELLIGENCE", it's nowhere close to intelligence.

And this "But it's simply not possible for even a 10GB model to contain every detail of every image it has been trained on when that image set was 100s of GB or more" is not even an argument, nothing needs to contain every detail of something to be theft/plagiarism. Try using 5 seconds of a 10-minute-long copyright-protected song on your  Youtube video and see what will happen.

My pleasure!

Ah, yes, quality of Poser promos is something I have been screaming about for probably years now. Still very rarely I see the quality the DAZ side of this site offers if looking only at the promos. 

A lot of Poser users - and vendors - are STILL afraid to use Superfly and continue stuck in Firefly, which is why a lot of the promos for Poser look like they were made 15 years ago: because they were rendered in an engine that is over 15 years old.

I was about to yell SHE IS VERY PG-FRIENDLY IN DEFAULT but you beat me to it LMAO  (or: how to tell that odf got the Pro version, dialed favorites and saved it back to library xD )

I have that script - yes, it's great. It fails, sometimes. The process to use it is kinda convoluted, which of course makes sense as it has to go around Poser's limitations.

From what I understand, it saves a "before" obj, which you need to point it to after you morph it - it compares the two and maths its way around what changed. Very smart process. It lets you know how precise the calculation managed to be.

There are a lot of features that were done in scripts that I've suggested adding to Poser, with the reply that "it won't be needed once we have <X feature that is planned to come>", but the X feature isn't coming. It's a pity, we keep wasting time trying to avoid wasting time.

So many companies have done this too. So shady of them opting users in, and then they find out later after the fact.  Even LinkedIn did this (what do they even need it for there?). 

If I were to guess, I'd wager they got paid by AI-pushing companies to do that. Guh, I wasn't aware of LinkedIn doing this too. 

You are attempting to use La Femme 2 expressions on La Femme 1 :)

La Femme 2 tends to take LF1's expressions well, they look softer on her - but LF1 doesn't take LF2 expressions well because LF2 requires harsher rotations for her expressions, and those look bad on LF1.

Geez. I'm so sorry you had to go through that, Deecey. That sucks :(

pierremeu posted at 9:03 AM Fri, 27 September 2024 - #4489791

Adobe trained their AI with the consent of artists as I read. So it can be done the right way. 

Nobody actually consented. It was just a "from now on if you're using our program you consent, but also we're not gonna warn you about that change - oh, we're gonna hide is as an option just to avoid legal trouble, but the option is on unless you know to look ant turn it off".

Go look, thousands of artists have been leaving Adobe lately because of those bad practices.

lsauvage posted at 8:29 AM Fri, 27 September 2024 - #4489790

so i believe they gave up and try to start something else, we just can try to  guess what : Transform poser into a paying Blender plugin for posing ?

That would make absolutely no sense. Specially considering that the vast majority of remaining Poser users seem to stay for the user interface simplicity.

DeeceyArt posted at 12:03 PM Fri, 27 September 2024 - #4489797

As one of those who was blindsided by Smith Micro in an all hands on deck telephone meeting (three days before Thanksgiving 2016), the way Smith Micro let the entire Poser team go was BRUTAL. The meeting was not even 15 minutes long and  email accounts were locked and closed within that time. 

Oh god, I didn't know it was THAT bad. :(

"Renderosity has been the worst manager of the software"

ok ok I'm gonna give my input here from someone who has been usiing Poser since Poser 1, and creating content for it since Poser 5: no, Renderosity hasn't been the worst. Renderosity might have been the one with less resources though.

Smith Micro took good care of it for a while, then as soon as it was no longer as profitable, they just completely cut up the entire development team and abandoned it. THAT was the worst part, because those years of complete radio silence were the ones that allowed all other programs to race well past Poser technology-wise and take almost all its users and content creators. With Renderosity, what happens is that Poser is now in the hands of a company that has more interest in it (as it also sells content for it), but also didn't have prior experience with developing software (it was a website development company), as far as I know. The team is capable, but small. Fixes and new features come slow.

The thing is, yes, they come slow, and don't look flashy - because every new company that got their hands on Poser tried to give it new exciting features, but just hacked them onto the program without fixing the underlying tech to make it work smoothly. We're left with a program that has so many bugs and limitations accumulated from that frankensteining of different teams. It's like a house that was built to be a single-floor house, but then every new buyer of it kept building new floors one atop the other without fixing the foundations. It's starting to crack at the walls. If it continues like this, it's gonna crumble over its own weight and get destroyed.

What Renderosity has been doing is, as well as they can, they're tweaking the foundations of the house so that it can support new weight. We've already had a revamp of Superfly, that now allows them to update with newer versions of Blender's Cycles faster than before - when every new GPU model required an entirely new Poser version to be supported. Things like old rigging bugs are getting fixed - it's no longer a complete nightmare to use the Joint Editor! - and other things under the hood are getting fixed. What this means is that end users almost don't see any changes, but if this wasn't done, the entire program would be unusable soon.