LPR001 posted at 6:33AM Wed, 18 November 2015 - #4239293

Studio had break in still waiting for full details but not good at all.

Dude, sorry to hear that. Was the stuff they took insured at least?

Razor42 posted at 8:01PM Tue, 17 November 2015 - #4239209

Xatren go full passive aggressive on me if you like, honestly I don't mind :)

You either don't know what passive aggressive means, or hope that I don't. Either way, my behavior was (perhaps ovely) aggressive, but not in any fashion passive. Passive aggressive behavior is for children and cowards.

If you read my statement I was merely suggesting that your comment was rather OT and had been discussed in depth elsewhere. And in turn directing you to that font of er...wisdom. Whether you like cloud or not honestly doesn't really matter to me or change the fact that you're speculating about the future of the company Daz3D in a thread about figure releases, after the initial posters comment had been addressed in this thread and also in depth in the thread I directed you to.

My comments in context, were regarding the thread which is full of the things I described.

Your comments were clearly meant as I took them, and now you're just trying to say you never meant anything of the sort to avoid confrontation. That is passive aggressive behavior. At least have the courage of your convictions.

Here, take this for future reference.

EDIT: Link added.

Razor42 posted at 7:21PM Tue, 17 November 2015 - #4239197

I think you want this thread for speculation that starts with "I think..." ----->Insert random sky is falling or Evil Daz Empire speculation or what Daz3D are "going to do in the future" with nothing but intuition to guide you, type of statement <-----

And I think you read my post with the tone you wanted it to have to let you be snarky, rather than thinking about what was actually said. For reference: I actually approve of the move (or rather, likely move) to a cloud based business model for DAZ. I know that doesn't fit with the picture of my views that's you're trying to paint there, but it's true. DAZ would only be being smart by looking to the cloud for the future.

Also, when next you choose to chide someone for posting about topics you would like to see exclusively elsewhere, perhaps you should focus on the person bringing the topic into the thread you have deemed it inappropriate for, and not the person simply replying.

But then again, maybe your goal is to seem paternalistic, dismissive, and a bit prone to prejudging others' motives.

EldritchCellar posted at 7:00PM Tue, 17 November 2015 - #4239170

Zbrush.

Yeah I know, apples and oranges.

Heh, yeah, and the fact that ZBrush 3.x used to crash if you looked directly at it might have played a part in Pixologic's free upgrades model.

Well, for what it's worth, I too believe DAZ will go cloud based for their content, just not with the model everyone seems to be thinking. All software companies are trying since Adobe proved it was viable, and the CG world is at the center of it. My company now pays for Autodesk entertainment creation suite subs and Adobe CC subs for the people that deal with the creative end (yay for me).

I personally think they are planning subscription based content, letting people pay a flat fee per month for X dollars (or ikely, points) worth of downloads, and pay extra for more. Maybe tiered subscriptions, with more points for higher levels of monthly fee, etc. That's just my speculation though.

However, anyone saying the cloud isn't coming in one form or another is just being willfully blind. It's too profitable and skewed in favor of the vendor for software companies not to try (and yes, assets are software).

Well, speaking as someone that just bought back in to Poser with a deeply discounted Poser Pro 2012 ($103), I am happy that I bought that instead of shelling out for Poser Pro 11. I am very disappointed with Pauline. The elbow in the posted pic is unforgivable, and they should fix it asap. The shoulder is a little ballooned as well, but that's not as urgent a thing to fix. How bad is Paul?

I truly hope that the issue with the elbow in that pic is just due to some hidden option Zev0 didn't see (maybe that dynamic joint recentering thing could help?), but I think that's very unlikely. He knows what he's doing. I'm beginning to think it's Smith Micro that doesn't.

wolf359 posted at 10:14AM Tue, 17 November 2015 - #4239064

For the usual & expected purposes in a free program like Daz studio ( Stills), Iray does not need to be RenderMan.

I'm well aware of what Renderman is. We learned a good bit about it when I was getting my degree. It's also available for free for anyone to use for personal or educational purposes these days.

All that being said, nobody implied that DAZ Studio level stuff needs access to Renderman. All I said was that iRay is not Renderman, in response to someone's assertion that work like this isn't light years beyond what is possible in DAZ Studio.

Once again, for the record, I like Poser and DAZ figures,and I think iRay produces some very nice visuals, but pretending the limitations aren't there doesn't make those limitations go away.

bhoins posted at 9:22AM Tue, 17 November 2015 - #4238892

Not since DS added Iray it isn't.

iRay is very good. It's not Renderman though.

Xatren posted at 6:49AM Mon, 16 November 2015 - #4238862

Not really, no.

Well, perhaps it's tangentially related. I just want to make sure that it is clear that it's not only about feminine ideal beauty. It effects all of the Poser and DAZ living creature models, human, dragon, or whatever else they may be. My personal opinion is that it's done to increase their appeal.

Razor42 posted at 5:44AM Mon, 16 November 2015 - #4238792

The concept that realism doesn't sell is not very solid.

I meant to the Poser & DAZ Studio ecosystem. Nothing offered to that market has been truly realistic as of yet. Sorry if that was not clear.

I believe what you're getting into is the concept of idealised beauty which is not restricted to just CG.

Not really, no.

Zev0 posted at 12:31PM Sun, 15 November 2015 - #4238760

But that is not to say the figures are not capable of doing so. That is the part I disagree with.

You should re-read the post then. I said at the outset that they are completely capable of doing much higher levels of realism, but that such things don't sell, because all those added and admittedly minor details just tend to age a character (particularly a female) whereas the vast majority of DAZ's customers seem to want an idealized sort of pretty.

diogenese19348 posted at 12:19PM Sun, 15 November 2015 - #4238759

There's a good thread over at DAZ pointing out that Photorealism isn't really that important - if you want a picture of somebody there really isn't any scarcity of them of any type, pose, or costume. The point of 3D rendering is not to take photos, that's what camera's are for. At least for 99.99% of us, realistic is all we are looking for, not photo-realism. Which half the time someone removes with Photoshop editing anyway.

This is exactly what I am saying, if you change the word 'realistic' to the word 'believable'. For what it's worth, I think we are using the two words to mean the same thing, dio. Cameras made photo realism in portrait painting redundant, and if I want completely real documentation of what is, I'll still go with a camera, as will pretty much everyone else. I used CG when I want something that reality can't give me, and that includes Poser & DAZ Studio. They give me an idealized representation of reality, something prettier than what is, and that's very cool.

To reiterate, I love Poser and the DAZ figures. They let artists of all skill levels or with steep time constraints make some very cool stuff. I love working with them personally (in fact, I am planning a game using pre-rendered sprites made with the generation 6 stuff). I just think it's silly to pretend that they actually look like real people, when what they look like is more akin to classical Greek sculpture with believable skins. It's stylized a bit (minor anatomical detail removed as was pointed out when talking about Scarlett's face), idealized (nothing wrong with that), and just accurate enough to be believable, which is what they need to be for the customer base they are aimed at.

Zev0, of course it can be very good. I said in the post you disagreed with that it can be very good. It still can't be completely realistic. Look into the Uncanny Valley effect. CG may be beginning to scale the far side of that valley, but it hasn't gotten back out of it yet.

As for your reply being to my saying that CG can't be completely realistic yet, that's not what you specifically quoted out of my initial post to disagree with. In the future, perhaps you can say what you're disagreeing with, rather than expecting people to know that you meant something other than what you said?

Zev0 posted at 11:58AM Sun, 15 November 2015 - #4238744

This was done in 2008 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4#t=13

I've seen that before, and yes, it's very good. You have to admit though, it's light years beyond what Poser and DAZ Studio are capable of.

Zev0 posted at 11:55AM Sun, 15 November 2015 - #4238743

Well in my opinion currently you can get very close.

There's no chance that was done in Poser or DAZ Studio though.