In the store? He's there somewhere.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=1191

By the way, I am surprise Duane, you are thinking Vicky is not realistic. You have some great face morphs that show you have a great understanding of facial features, but I think yours look more realistic when turned from 1.000 to .500. I'm telling you, there is a real living/breathing Vicki out there, and if you saw her, you'd think she looked just fine.

Actually I do have a photo somewhere of the model for Vicki...and actually she looks just fine. I think peoples perceptions get distorted because everyone jerks around their models to enhance features that really aren't realistic. Like oversized eyes and irises, lips and noses not shaped/sized real. The stock Vicky is alot more realistic than I think people realize. I will try to find the photos, scan them, and post them.

Well, not narrow the nose as much as don't have it upturned.

Hmm...try narrowing the nose, making the upper lip bigger, the lower lip a tiny bit bigger, eyes more hazel for starters. Good facial structure. Eyebrows are about right but need to be smoothed into texture.

Go through the materials texture area on poser and make sure the each part of Mike has either the head or body texture applied to it correctly, and the default color is white, or else Poser will ignore the texture and use the color selected.

Hmm....thanks but that's not quite what I mean. Suppose I just have a logo, that I want converted to a 3D object, not just mapped onto an object. The still to real looks good, but it looks more for providing depth to an organic shape.

LadySilverMage, I can double check, but I think you are mixing copyrights and trademarks. Copyrights do not necessarily need to be registered, trademarks do.

Who is Staale Loseth? Haven't seen his posts...

If you own a DAZ texture, you could modify one yourself and use it, but it would be a copyright violation if someone else supplied you with a modified version.

Hey Sydd. Let me preface what I'm saying that I really like a lot of your 3D work. I've always been impressed by people that can wring as much as possible out of an app. I think we are talking about the same thing on resolution but because of the posting, rather than talking, we're missing each other's meaning. You can take a low resolution model and render it to a high resolution image, it will be very sharp, but not have smooth curves. Conversely, you can take a high polygonal model and render it to lower resolution output. Resolution and polygons aren't the same, but are usually related because it usually just doesn't make sense to do a high resolution render of a low polygonal curving model. Again, there are some things I really like about Poser, and I've used it for a few projects. And I am going to soon start a project where I am going to for the first time import Poser objects and scenes into Lightwave and see what I can do with the improved render engine. Hopefully it works out since I am going to spending time and money on a project I hope to get accepted at film and animation festivals. The hook being that one person (me) is doing the writing, directing, CGI, and post work. I won't be able to do it without Poser, but on the flip side, I despise Poser's render engine. It's doing beta work on this project that I can especially appreciate the work being done on Final Fantasy, in particular the characters, hair, and clothing. The hair and clothing are especially impressive, and I understand all that is their proprietary software. The motions of the characters are likewise impressive, but I'm thinking a lot of it is motion capture based. But I'm sure within less time than we would expect (or maybe not) we will be able to do the same on our home computers. I still remember Poser 1, and I think that came out, what 5 or 6 years ago? So if it isn't Poser, something is always going to keep pushing our envelope. The same is true with the movies. 5 or 6 years from now Hollywood will look back at Final Fantasy as a quaint first try at an all CGI realistic movie. So I say let's keep pushing the envelope, but come on, we have to give these guys their dues for making Final Fantasy look so fantastic. They are some of the best of the best, and to compare their work to Poser is sort of like comparing the Seattle Mariners to a high school baseball team...sure, their both playing baseball... Thanks for your comments Sydd, I definitely see your points and agree with them largely. Final Fantasy opens July 15th, FYI. i also saw Shrek just recently and that was very well done. I saw the making of Shrek, and they must have mentioned 15 times that "this is the first time anyone has done this," phrased one way or another. Knowing DreamWorks, they stepped on it to get it out before Final Fantasy, otherwise they wouldn't be able to say that (and it must be important to them judging by the number of times they say it!). Just like they put in a lot of OT to get Antz out before Bug's Life. It's the DreamWorks way... To conclude, Render On!

Sydd, I don't disagree that you know Poser. I was referring to knowing 3D in general. I am not an expert at all of them, but I am familiar with Lightwave, Maya, SoftImage, and Poser (as well as a few others). By watching the trailer for Final Fantasy, anyone that knows 3D immediately recognizes that the creators of Final Fantasy are using software and equipment many notches above Poser. Your still photos hide Poser defects in shadows and poses, and post work. Not to mention it's a still. To animate, to breath some life into a 3D character is truly what separates the high end systems from Poser. And when I was referring to the resolution, no, I did mean the resolution of the images, not the polygons. Polygons are independent of resolution. Someone earlier made a comment that the Final Fantasy faces were high resolution and that the movie would be lower resolution. The exact opposite is true. These images are just low res 72 dpi images, the movie will be dealing with much higher resolutions. The differences I'm talking about here are equivalent to say a college painter being compared to a master. Poser just doesn't have the toolset.

The devil is in the details. On one hand you can say Poser 4 isn't that far off, but on the other, it really is. The software used for Final Fantasy is largely propriatary, and the rest is extreme high end. There are diminishing returns, especially now-a-days, when reaching for the high end (meaning as you continually throw more money and time and resources at a CGI project, each addition result in less and less improvements). Poser does do a great job, especially now Daz has provided higher polygonal models, but it still can't really touch these systems. Not to mention the incredible ability of this software to animate these characters. That's where it even gets to be more amazing. The way it handles organic material and random movement (hair for instance) is fantastic (although commonplace I'm sure in a few years). And you're wrong if you think that those shots from Final Fantasy are high resolution shots just from promos. These are just 72dpi shots, relatively small. Film renders are done at about 3000x2000. I mean, anyone that is saying Poser comes close, really doesn't know what they are talking about. Don't get me wrong, I dig Poser, but this is a different league. For now. I'm sure Poser 7 or so will do all this, but then again movies and other high end entertainment will be well past this point also.

"she what happens?" I think you need to lay off the sauce.