6 threads found!
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|
Graybeard | 14 | 1001 | ||
Graybeard | 7 | 398 | ||
Graybeard | 16 | 315 | ||
Advisories: nudity
|
Graybeard | 5 | 220 | |
Graybeard | 5 | 244 | ||
Graybeard | 8 | 361 |
39 comments found!
The same figure - and yes it is bent a lot (works nicely for the picture once it is done, believe me!) - renders with no problems on the Poser firefly engine.
I'll try your advice about subdividing the joint area (I can always connect to the hair in postwork).
The Poly issue explains the top of the picture (It is a buttock) - but does it explain the jagged edge of the inside of the leg ?
I actually did not post on the speed issue for the moment, but since you have taken it up there is a few things that makes me wonder. My machine is relatively fast: Intel NT 3,2 Mhz with 2 Gig memory. The processor went 99% all the way during the render, but the memory never got over 300 Mb. Is itnormal for Carrara to use resources like this? IAnd does anyone have any experience with rendering high intensity dynamic hairs from Poser. I do think 120 hrs is a bit over the top. Is there any brilliant way to make the hair in Carrara?.
Â
Questions, questions... ;-)
Thread: SR3 not installing. | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Hi Katherine! I have uploaded the SP3 file with the crc-error to your ftp-site as requested. I downloaded the file twice - still encountered the crc-error. I have a 512 ADSL-connection - and I have never encountered similar problems - even with large files - like video-files. Good luck with fixing what you can from your side. Best wishes Graybeard
Thread: Do I dare???? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Thread: Poser 5 problem - black patches in Kozaburo's short hair | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=308702
OK - so the picture is finished - Thank all of you again.Thread: Poser 5 problem - black patches in Kozaburo's short hair | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Thread: bandwidth thief discovered | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
OK - let's see if we can't close this discussion. What brought me to the inkwell in the first place was a wish to bring a few more aspects into the debate. I think I may have succeded in doing this - allthough I am not quite sure... You can not have read me to say that I do not respect anyone, who makes resources available on the net. On the contrary I have a high regard for that, be it in the world of 3d, in journalism or wherever else it may be the case. I am a proponent of openness and decency. This decency applies in all areas of the world - online or off. I believe that our mutual respect for one another is the ultimate rule for the net. This also applies to how we deal with those, who transgress the written and unwritten rules. They too should be treated with decency. Matters should be dealt with promptly, but with a chance to correct the mistake made. In that light, cooler, let me say that I appreciate that you and other people have written to the guy in question. Should he not withdraw his links to pages and models when requested, he is acting unacceptably and I believe one should tell him that and eventually inform his ISP. The internet is not an "anything goes" place. Some rules are legal - some social. But the internet should remain a very liberal place - otherwise it looses its best qualities.
Thread: bandwidth thief discovered | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
cooler, I am really not trying to be inflamatory, but you have a bit of a contradiction in your view. If deep linking steals your bandwith, then the obvious solution is to let the Dutch guy host a copy of your models. Actually, the more, who host them, the happier for your bill from your ISP. This is obviously not what you mean. By posting a downloadable model on your homepage, you can set rules for its use: for non-commercial, for commercial use etc. and indeed most modellers do just that. But as long as you have it freely downloadable on your page, a deep link with a clear reference to the origins is according to the sources I have quoted above probably not an infringement (at least not of US law) Copying the model and passing it of as ones own would be. As far as the copyright laws goes, there is no difference between a piece of software, a 3d model and a newspaper article. The real issue lies somewhere else. The real issue is about decent behaviour and politeness. Even if I maintain that you cannot legally protect stuff from deep links, I would hate it if the many fine modellers took their stuff off line. I for one do not know what I would have done without Kozaburo's hair to mention one fine example. So what we need to do is to maintain some moral principles inside the community. Among those is the one about asking before you link to a specific model. Who knows, maybe the modeller would let you post it (thus avoiding the bandwidth issue completely). It is on this background I proposed people to write the guy in the Netherlands and talk the matter over with him. On the general issue, I do believe that deep links and making reaources available to other people is what keeps the internet alive, The 3d community is a great example of just that.
Thread: bandwidth thief discovered | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
jade - I do not dispute that the Dutch guy would have been more in line with netiquette had he asked permission. That is what I would have done in his place. In principle there is no difference between a 3d model, a photograph and a piece of writing. They are all the result of an creative proces requiring skills, talent and effort. Thus my point about deep linking still holds - whether it is to a newspaper article, to a picture or to a "free" 3d model. I just want us to be discussing the real thing. This is no question of copyright. It is a question of netiquette. And that covers the bandwith question as well. And then I'd like - perhaps at another time - to have a general discussion with you guys on the principal question of whether deep linking is OK or not, and on the general issue of copyright.
Thread: bandwidth thief discovered | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Wow - what a discussion. It makes me feel that I need to comment, and I'd like to start doing so by mentioning a parallel case. A Danish News-service was successfully brought to court by the Danish Association of Newspaper Publishers. The case concerned exactly the same thing we discuss here: Deep links. The news-service operated on a subscriber basis, providing a search service, which gave the customers a direct access to those pages in the newspapers sites which had their interest. It is important to be aware that the service only linked to public pages of the newspapers, not subscriber-only. The newspapers on their side demanded that the news service be prohbibted from posting any deep links to their news sites as it potentially decreased advertising revenue. The newspapers won the case with the argument that the newsservice was making money through their deep links. If the newsservice had been free of charge, the deep linking would, by implication, have been OK. However, this was not specifically stated. At the same time, a ruling in an American court has established that, according to American copyright law, deep linking is OK. This ruling concerned two businesses, Ticketmaster and Ticket.com. The former contended that Ticket.com was doing something illegal by deep linking to Ticketmasters site, but they lost the case. These are the links to the Danish case: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51887,00.html http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/776542.asp#BODY and to the Travelmaster case: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html It seems clear from these two rulings that deep links to other webpages are definitely OK if you are not making money on the venture. It might even be OK if you are running a business. Now to our Dutch webpage: What he is doing is essentially deep links. He is not claiming copyright. He clearly states the name of the provider in most cases. The only place I can see a problem is on the texture pages, where the origin can be a bit unclear. He could have asked if the linking was OK, but he is, by all indications, not doing anything illegal. There is another aspect of this deep-link discussion, which is of much more principal nature, and that concerns the very nature of free information on the internet. I have in this post used 3 deep links. If you glance through this forum, you will find almost exclusively deep links. I daresay that if I had asked for a model of a mailbox, someone would most likely have answered me with a deep link. If deep links become illegal, we can only link to the main page of any site, and information will slowly grind to a halt. Now that is a worrysome prospect in my not so very humble opinion. Those of you, who are miffed about your models appearing on the dutch site or are afraid of your bandwidth, write to the guy and ask him to remove them. Judging from the character of the site, he will most probably be happy to comply. But unless you specifically state in your pages that deep links are not acceptable, I cannot see any infringement issues in this business at all.
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Thread: Jagged edges in Carrera rendering - newbie question | Forum: Carrara