TwiztidKidd posted at 12:35 PM Wed, 30 November 2022 - #4450651

I don't remember very well as this was almost 16 years ago, but I think you have to run a .pz2 file that comes with the morphs++ package, and that will inject all the ++morphs into your .cr2 file.

Also there were times when morphs wouldn't load properly, or load but not work when you turned the dial, because your OS is running low on memory, close other programs. Restart computer.

Yes, you have to load the Morphs just like any other morph.
The issue being described here is that After loading the morphs they only show on individual body parts (head, arm, leg, torso, etc) but the FBM (Full Body Morph) on the 'Body' for controlling all at once no longer appears.

Rhia474 posted at 3:51 PM Wed, 30 November 2022 - #4450670

I open the zip file, look for the runtime folder,  (ignore Content folder) and merge with the relevant figure's runtime folder on my external drive I set up Poser's libraries.  Works with every single daz asset I have and it carries over from one version to the other as all I do is reattach libraries to the new version. No reinstall needed.

That is exactly what I have done for years, since Poser 2, never had any issues.
I never experienced this 'Missing FBM' issue until just recently with Poser 12.....however I have not actually used V4/M4 in a long time either so I can not be certain when it began on my system (Windows).

I have began to have this same issue on Windows.
V4 and M4 have always been in the same runtime for many many years. It seemed to be after my last install of P12.
I too re-downloaded all my V4/M4 files from DAZ and reinstalled them (same external runtime) and still I can not get the FBMs to appear but can access on individual body parts.
LeFemme and L'Homme are not effected and some of my old V4/M4 characters still show the FBM but only when I try to build a new character......???

hborre posted at 8:36 AM Wed, 31 August 2022 - #4443724

If you are talking about "Recent Renders", open the panel, select the render you want to delete, and right-click to open the contextual menu.  Superfly does not recognize DepthCue, you need to use the Volume settings on the atmosphere node to control that environment.  Use the PostFX to control exposure post-render. 

Very nice render BTW.

I am speaking of the first render above. I clicked the wrong one in the folder and did not realize until uploaded; most forums allow the poster to 'edit' a post but I do not see that as an option here...?
I forgot someone said Superfly does not do DepthCue....however it did toss everything around La Femme's head (my focal point) out of focus so it is trying to. I will have to render it again in Firefly and see what the difference is.
As for 'Atmosphere'; another one I have not played with much as it seems to just cover the entire scene from Camera Lens to background (like fog), not seen much in the way of the brief manual and simple tutorials on any way to control it (foreground to background)?

**Somehow I grabbed the wrong version and don't know how to delete it or replace it?? I do not see an 'Edit' option.
The final one is not so bright......

Still working on it but I thought I would show it before I dive too much into post work and it no longer be a "Poser 12 Superfly" render.
I have worked it some as I:
1) Didn't like Poser's Depth Cue blurring the foreground so much, or maybe I just don't have a handle one using it yet?
So I separated it with two renders; one Depth Cue and one not and combined them in Photoshop for the look I wanted with some depth in the background and not blurring her feet and legs.
2) The raw Poser render was too 'flat' for my taste, did not separate the foreground, mid-ground, and background for good outdoor look.
So again I rendered the foreground with 'Transparent Background' to separate the render and control the lighting (and depth cue effect) separately. Also the background mountain and sky are projected on a plane so the sky got 'Depth Cued' with the mountain and valley so I pasted it over a non-depth render and cut out the sky so the non-blurred could show through.

Other then that (and a little tweaking to the lighting) it is all Poser Superfly.....next I will grunge it to an 'old Western' look...not sure how, I never do until I do it..
Oh, La Femme's clothing is V4's outfit converted to LF. The conversion had trouble with her boots so I had a round about way to fix that (a story for another day, another post)
Two Lights: One IBL with an HDRi and one Infinity light with slight desert tint
Also an HDRi applied to the Background to blend lighting with the background image.
The rest of the figures should be recognized by most (I made the sign)

hborre posted at 5:16 PM Tue, 21 December 2021 - #4432219

The render resembles a stage production rather than an outdoor festival of sorts.  A far cry from being an actual nighttime lit environment.  Rendering a pure white surface is very tricky in Superfly and adding any sort of ambient illumination just overwhelms shadows in general.  I like the post-work but you can still see the underlying glow of the snow on the ground.

Very true, all my attempts to do without any ambient on the snow just turned it all grey. Adding the noise filter to it and a value of (I think) .03/.04 is where I settled and chose that I would just have to post work in the shadowing. Results where not too bad in some FireFly tests I ran but then I am trying to learn SuperFly so that just defeated the whole goal.

ghostship2 posted at 11:58 PM Mon, 20 December 2021 - #4432185

Make the background trees bigger, move them back further and use DOF blur to separate the foreground from the background trees. Just a thought.

Actually I did have another set of hills and trees behind at first. I took them out as the entire tree section just was not getting shadowed at all. I even tried a Spotlight set to Black with shadows at 1,000 and it did not help (I think that was an old trick, does not seem to work in SF). With the extra set of trees/hills it was very taxing on my system once the characters were added.
I considered DoF but getting too close to Christmas and just wanted to finish it.
Rendering was not too bad; about an hour and half or two hours with settings cranked up.

I could not get Cycles snow to pick up any shadowing at all so I switched to Poser Surface with a very low Ambient filtered through '3D Noise'.....lighting has always and still is my worse enemy 

I haven't posted much around here but since we are all putting Poser 12 through the paces, here is my recent SuperFly render.
The final image is heavily post worked in Photoshop as I could not get the shadowing and depth I wanted from Poser alone so I will post the Before and After.
I could not get the outfit to fit LaFemme as the hood kept separating so I reverted to Vicky4.

Used just Background lighting with an .Exr (used 4K as the 8k blew the image out, maybe there is a way to fine tune that but I don't know yet) and used one Area Light.
As you can see in the original render I was unable to pick up any good shadows even after ditching Flink's Cycle shader on the snow, but that is what postwork is for, right?

Anyway, the basic theme is:
Each year when Santa takes to the sky with his reindeer to deliver toys to all the good little girls and boys, Mr Claus remains behind and entertains the elves until his return.
(oh, and the ones coming in from right, well those are Krampus' elves and their reindeer, Rudy)

After Postwork:

Before Postwork:

@ChromeStar
You wrote: "When you rendered your two images, did you keep the width and height the same, in pixels?"

Answer: Yes. In ALL examples I have done here the Pixel width and height were NEVER changed.


@Cyogreem
Spot on, everything you have said.

@JoEtzold
I have already, multiple times, acknowledged your pointing out "Resampling" function in the Image Editors.
The rest of your rant - perhaps if you actually USED Poser 12 you may be able to see what Cyogrem and I are seeing.


@ChromeStar
You wrote: "Poser renders pixels."
CORRECT
You wrote: "Graphics files like jpg and png store pixels. The amount of detail in an image is determined solely by those pixels."

True, but a little more complicated then that. JPG is a highly compressed image file where files such as PNG, PSD, TIF, RAW (well, we will leave that one out...) all have ability to hold much more data and are therefor higher resolution (and larger files).

....I think back years ago when some creators where posting their textures in BMP format; HUGE files. Back then I had a tiny Windows 98 computer, I once mentioned that I was converting them to JPG due to storage size and some where AGHAST that I would do such a thing for they said the JPGs would give me much lower resolution and therefor poorer renders....this is TRUE, but back then I was only rendering for 'pretty pictures on the Internet' not for printing.

You wrote: "If the number of pixels is correct, you can trivially change the DPI setting with no loss of detail -- by changing the print size while keeping the pixel dimensions the same"

True! However as JoEtzold pointed out - be sure to Uncheck the "Resampling" box in the Image Editor (checked by default in all of mine) or it will change the Pixel width and height. By unchecking the "Resampling" (as JoEtzold pointed out) you can tell the printer which Dpi to print out said Pixel Dimension.


@caisson
Yes, that pretty much clears it all up.
True, it is a minor bug - once you know about it AND if 'print' quality is not the final output target, otherwise most Poser users will never know the difference or that it even exists.

@ Everyone:
I think this issue is warped up for now. A 'minor bug' has been found, it only effects a small number of Poser users but it is not a function or use killer by any means.

End Result (ONLY for those who print for quality) - Determine your Print Size in "Pixel Dimensions" then in the Image Editor be sure to UnCheck "Resample" (like JoEtzold pointed out) so it will Not change your "Pixel Dimensions" and then enter your Dpi into the Document settings - hit Print
(well, only hit "print" once you have set all your other particular 'Printing Preferences' and 'color management' settings and your desired 'printer profile' from your libraries...THEN hit print - but NONE of these are Poser setting issues)

Cyogreem posted at 6:56 AM Fri, 1 October 2021 - #4428347

It comes to it that you will not be able to just change the dpi in Photoshop expecting to keep the same size increasing the dpi as the dpi is produced while rendering and can't be faked expecting to achieve a better quality in a Image application, so this would not make a better quality of your Image. true dpi are generated when rendering, the higher the dpi the smaller your render square will be.

THANK YOU Cyogreem!!! THANK YOU!
I had a feeling I was conversing with just web image posters but thought for sure some of the old professionals we used to converse with some years back were still around, some of those who render for comic books, some of those who render for editing into video (not just Instagram or YouTube posting). But it looks like most of them are either gone or stay lurking as I have these past many years.

@RedPhantom ; No, can not see much via your samples, however Cyogreem's example Do show the difference between a 72px/in and 600px/in very well and noticeably.
The primary issue that I have with Printing and not knowing ahead of time what Poser is doing is that when I print I am not printing to ordinary typing paper or even photo paper; my purpose is to print to a special paper (Pearl Matalic) that is expensive and gives the best print when the image is of high quality. Poor resolution will show more then would on everyday paper.

However, the angry one had shown a way to 'change the dpi without changing the paper size' in Photoshop (I have acknowledged this multiple times now). But as Cyogreem points out - 'Changing' values in an Image Editor does usually open up the can of worms of trying to "fake resolution". There are high end image apps for this but even then it is always a 'Best Effort' (however some of the new, expensive apps do pretty darn well).
So the question still remains: is Poser 12 actually Rendering anything other then 72px/in
When I find time to set up a good test to do an Extreme Zoom in on I will see.

@JoEtzold again, I will offer you again a thanks for pointing out "Resample" in the Image Editors....sorry if the rest was over your head and you are unable to 'see' yourself what we are discussing since you are not even using P12, But I will keep my further discussion of Poser 12 with those who are Actually using the program, thank you.

Cyogreem posted at 8:08 PM Tue, 28 September 2021 - #4428258

Seems that poser 12 is clearly broken compared to all the previous versions when it comes to DPI. all previous versions work well and clearly render at the DPI setting not reducing it . You will note this when reducing an image rendered at 300-600 dpi in Poser 11 and reducing it for Web at 72 Dpi that it will loose quiet allot of quality and not be as sharp. Actually it is not the Idea having such an Option in Poser 12 expecting it to work and having to calculate a Increased size to achieve the effective DPI you want to end up with.

Seems Poser 12 will remain for some more years in Pre Release not even the Poser 11.1 SM to Bondware's 11.3 version has ever been finished before the support stopped it just has been dropped with a broken Python engine that needs to be run with a 3rd party fix ! Not a very serious marketing strategy. 

Well at least you seem to see what I am getting at here.
My WHOLE intention here was to Render the Size and Resolution desired for printing so during Postwork I do not have to Enlarge or Reduce the image, thus loosing quality.
*****Lets Drop The "Dpi" as that seems to be confusing the Question - Both Poser and Photoshop show them as Resolution = px/n (pixels per inch)********
(that was my fault for that is the way us print people think "dpi" whereas computer people think in "px/in" - us hardware folk understand the translation but apparently some computer folk find it confusing)

@caisson; If you read back to the beginning - I had done exactly what you have said:
"So if you tell Poser what print size and resolution you need it will calculate the number of pixels needed to achieve that. 

If you tell it how many pixels you want you'll have to sort the print size and resolution yourself."

I told Poser both; What Print Size I want and the number of Pixels" - I had this all worked out ahead of time at the Print End.
- As you can see in the Poser 11 example above (using the 300px/in) P11 did what I requested - there was no need to "sort the print and resolution myself" as P11 gave me two different px/in renders as I aksed it to.
However, Poser 12 ALWAYS changes the px/in (pixels per inch) to 72 no matter what I tell the Render Engine to do.

You said:
"In the example screens you've posted, the image has the same resolution in both 11 & 12 - 640 x 480 pixels."
TRUE, I did so for the whole sake of comparing what the two versions of Poser are doing to the Resolution.
BUT, look again - in both Poser 11 & 12 I made TWO EACH RENDERS; one at 72px/in and one at 300px/in

You said:
"That number of pixels can be printed at either 8.888 x 6.666 inches at 72 dpi, or 2.133 x 1.6 inches at 300 dpi."
Here is where you go off the target - the Target its to Print BOTH 72dpi and 300dpi at 8.88 x 6.666 inches - - my example above should be Two Renders from Each version of Poser. Each version of Poser should have rendered Both 72px/in AND 300px/in ALL at the same 0000 x 0000 size. Only Poser 11 seems to have done this for Poser 12 did Two renders at 72px/in
The 72px/in will be less quality then the 300px/in

So the question is:
Given a Render size of 640 x 480 and render it Twice each using a Different Resolution value (one 72px/in and one 300px/in)
That should give out Two different final renders of Two different Resolutions, right?
A) 640 x 480 at a low resolution of 72px/in
B) 640 x 480 at high resolution of 300px/in

According to my sample: Poser 11 does this but Poser 12 does not.
According to my sample: Poser 12 is rendering both at 72px/in as confirmed by Photoshop
According to my sample: Only Poser 11 is rendering two different resolutions of the same pixel dimension (640 x 480)

**** In Short ****
If I had a 10 inch x 10 inch section of my Monitor with say 3,000 x 3,000 pixels and I view it with 72 pixels per inch then I have 5,184 pixels of color information (resolution), but if I view it with 300 pixels per inch then I have 90,000 pixels of color information and therefore a much higher, clearer, less grainy image. - - DO NOT CHANGE THE 10 in x 10 in

@JoEtzold ; First let me thank you for pointing out that you are NOT using Poser 12 to support your argument that what we see in Poser 12 is not happening. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Now, I really did think I was going to need to spend this much time for I thought I had given enough information and samples BUT here it goes:

The scene is the SAME, very simple. Only thing I change is the RESOLUTION SIZE in Poser then without changing anything I open the render in Photoshop and take a look at the Document Size.

Now here is what Goes Into Poser 12 and what comes Out (forget about the "Resampling" for I am changing NOTHING)
***Note: Two Renders, Two different RESOLUTIONS asked for but BOTH come out as 72

Now here is Poser 11: Same scene, ONLY changing the RESOLUTION, I change Nothing when I open it in Photoshop.
***NOTE: Poser 11 gives me One 72 Resolution Image and One 300 Resolution image

As the Pixel Dimension are NOT changing, what this tells me is that Poser 12 is rendering at a MAX Resolution of 72 pixels/inch but Poser 11 is rendering the requested 300 pixels/inch ALL with the 640x480 .......or is Poser 11 lying and really only rending both at 72?

So; is ANY version of Poser actually Rendering at resolutions higher then 72 ?? Poser 11 claims that it is, but Poser 12 is saying it can't.

So I will just leave it at this final 'explanation' from the web:

adp001 posted at 3:08 PM Fri, 17 September 2021 - #4427633

STOP!

The software in your last post says nothing about DPI! All I see is "pixels/inch", PPI!

PPI vs DPI: What’s the Difference and Why It Matters to Photographers

Okay, PPI if you wish - just keep in mind that Printers do not print "pixels", Printers print 'dots'; ie; the value is labeled "Resolution". Therefore in the Document size the terms PPI and Dpi are interchangeable.
My issue when I posted was that Poser is not writing OUT what the operator writes IN.
However, despite whatever issues JoEtzold may have about the description; Poser's 'Export Image' function is not keeping true to the inputs it is given.

I am done with this thread, as JoEtzold has said; he is not interested in this and no intention of printing out lots of different pictures automatical - if this is not something you use Poser for then why get upset because someone else might.
I don't print Comic books but I will not get "upset" if someone who does opens a conversation about doing so with Poser.

In closing; my solution has been found in JoEtzold's pointing out the "Resample" function of post editor software. All the rest of the bickering here is mute and the "trivials of DPi" would indeed be a topic for the 2D software threads.
(**bottom line: Poser not fully saving out what was fed in, one extra step in a 'print' workflow, no big deal....for me anyway)

@JoEtzold; and one more thing to point out to you - my OP, I am not working with JPG, my output from Poser is PNG
We have only brought JPG into the topic as "Document Size" comparison as cameras output JPG or RAW in higher end camera.
I work with PNG or PSD format (sometime TIFF) to keep the higher resolution that is lost when compressing into JPG.
So again: Document Size (media size & Dpi) are the print quality of any given Pixel Dimension.
I bring this up as I was looking at your referred to links - they do not seem to address the Print Resolution of a given JPG.
For Document Size & Resolution it does not matter the Format of the Image: If I have a 180dpi 4x5 Document Property set on an image, I can save it as PNG, TIFF, PSD, or JPG and it will open in any other Image Editor as THAT size and and dimension. (Except for Poser, for Poser will calculate it back down to Dpi of 72 and what ever document size that correlates to the given Pixel Dimension.....hence the "oh bother")