50 threads found!
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|
mickmca | 15 | 714 | ||
mickmca | 6 | 379 | ||
mickmca | 2 | 362 | ||
mickmca | 5 | 251 | ||
mickmca | 13 | 479 | ||
mickmca | 34 | 1047 | ||
mickmca | 9 | 499 | ||
mickmca | 1 | 128 | ||
Advisories: nudity
|
mickmca | 19 | 1027 | |
mickmca | 3 | 279 | ||
mickmca | 1 | 152 | ||
mickmca | 6 | 397 | ||
mickmca | 3 | 169 | ||
mickmca | 17 | 544 | ||
mickmca | 3 | 329 |
1,043 comments found!
I'm no texture expert. You might start a new thread with this question; I'd like to hear how the good guys do it. Meantime, what I do is build a layer that is nothing but the "default" skin color. Then I build my details on another layer above it. After that, it's low opacity smudging and erasing until my brain hurts. Mick
Thread: Poser5 "Morph Putty Tool" - Does it work? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Doogal-- Sorry, I wasn't cracking wise; I was seriously suggesting that the Face room isn't the solution, especially with Victoria's extraordinary wealth of morphs. I'd make my own "Face room" by setting up PSP on half the screen with my mug shots, and P5 on the other with the Face Camera in the Pose room, and dial away. Getting the face you want with the Face room, even on Judy's body, is no picnic. The Face room is essentially a toy for making Avatar heads to use in Adobe Atmosphere. If it does manage to create a face vaguely resembling the photo, chances are the neck will be so torqued that you'll need magnets to fix that. The green dots on the Face room photo are just Morph Putty dots. So eliminate the Face room from the equation; use the Morph Putty on Vickie in the Pose room. You are just as likely (IMHO more likely) to get good results. Maybe SR3 will improve the Face room, but until that neck thing is fixed, I'm not interested.
Thread: Head Camera/character POV | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Content Advisory! This message contains nudity
You can't use the cameras that switch from character to character, so forget Face, Hands, Posing, or Dolly. (Think about it. What happens when you switch current figure?) Your choices are Main or Aux, and that's about it. I did the whole thing with Aux, and when I move Mick's head, the camera moves to look at what he's looking at. I even animated it. No problem. (Well, except that her hair started hopping around, but that's another thread....)
Thread: Head Camera/character POV | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
"Hither" sets the point at which anything closer to the camera is invisible. To see it in action sight the camera up an arm from the finger tip and move toward the fingertip slowly. At some point, the tip will disappear and you will see "inside" the finger. Reduce Hither, and the fingertip will reappear. Technically, you could do the camera from the head's POV by putting the camera behind the head and then setting Hither to make the entire head invisible. That would have parallax problems with objects close to the head, though.
Thread: Poser5 "Morph Putty Tool" - Does it work? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
The mystery of the Morph Putty tool is its misnamed control, "Exaggeration." I spend days trying to get it to work with "Exaggeration" at 0.0 because I didn't WANT exaggeration, I just wanted to move some vertices around. "Exaggeration" is really the Use Limits and Min/Max settings in a new form. Set it for about +/- 1.5, and that green dot will move, as long as there is a morph dial supporting the move. It takes some getting used to, having the dot only move when a morph dial and the dot stroke find common ground. Where it really shines is in the Face room, which has enough morphs to give it some freedom, and with the Millenium folk, whose morph dials "talk" to it just like the P5's do, as long as you are in the Pose room. (Can't use Vickie et al in the Face room (and frankly, why would you?)).
Thread: Atmosphere, volumetrics, depth of field tuts? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1052275
P5 has DoF settings on the Render Options and they work adequately, if you want to avoid faking it with postwork. There is an excellent discussion elsewhere (the link above) that resolves into pretty detailed instructions, if not a tutorial. MThread: 'nuther Koshini Question.... | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Wait a sec. If you create a texture on a 1000x1000 template and apply it to an object "expecting" a 100x1000 template, the details of the image map will be squished, neh? It will be stretched to fit. But if you want it to fit as conceived, you have to detail the image map using the same form factor. Texture maps are like spray painted panthose. They stretch to fit. And everything stretches, including the cute little kitty who now looks like he's in a goldfish bowl because we've been hitting the chocolate ice cream a few times too often. ;) Mick
Thread: am I the only one...? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Sunday I spent five hours trying to make the lights on a reasonably good P4 render "improve" a P5 render of the same scene. When I rendered the scene as saved in P5 with Firefly, it looked different from last year's (ie, screwed up). But that's Ok; I've learned tons about shadows and stuff and I wanted to try that anyway.
As the work "progressed," I flashed back on the percentage of my creation time I had spent on the lights the first time I worked on the scene (Standing Stones). I began to sweat and shake. After the fourth hour, I took the dog for a walk. Might as well. The scene was "rendering."
Finally after five hours of tweaking, rendering, turning each light off in turn, turning it back on, checking shadows, rechecking, rendering, tweaking, changing intensities, switching infinite lights to spots, tweaking, moving spots, rendering, adjusting saturation, tweaking, checking shadows, rendering, I got a result I liked.
I put the result beside the render from last year, and it was the same--no better, no worse--except that the camera angle had shifted slightly at some point so I couldn't just replace the alpha channel in the composite....
I've decided to buy an Etch-a-Sketch, if I can find one.
Mick
Thread: I have a question about the reference manual for Poser 5. | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
The manual is actually pretty good when it's accurate. The problem is that when a release schedule is hustled, the documentation is the first casualty. In order to have a printed manual, the text must be finished and 'ready to ship' (to the printer) at least a month before it needs to be added to the package. Add to that the lead time to get the package manufactured and assembled, and you've got the manual representing the state of the program a good two months before it shipped, plus whatever wishful thinking was still not functional yet. In Poser's case, those two months were crucial. There are undocumented functions, and functions documented in classic computerese (you know, like "Use File > Save to save files" and "The Hierarchy Editor edits hierarachies." And inaccuracies, of course, which would have been caught if an editor had actually checked the program against the documentation. When documentation is weak, there is a whole string of culprits to examine, and the trail usually leads to the market bigwig who said, "Futch the documentation; I want revenue."
Thread: What makes a Woman A woman (the face! before you start!) | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
TO PapaBlueMarlin: Ok, that softens the blow a bit, I agree. I didn't find that page, in about twenty minutes of digging around. And I'm curious enough that I'd like to see where they end up when they pursue this. But I'm afraid I'm still very uncomfortable with the ideas these MBA folks are espousing. I look at that PHI "ideal" and all I have to do is imagine applying it to the roundfaced "beauties" in the movies and advertising and TV shows coming from Asian countries, much less the Japanese depictions of beauty in The Floating World, and I am immediately unpersuaded. I think the problem for me is that ambituous extension of this stuff into some sort of universal. Sure, they are on the right track, as regards the standards of beauty that govern the Western tradition (which have theoretical origins in Ancient Greece). But identifying our preferences, however hoary with generations of acceptance, with "what makes us look human" is way over a line I'm not willing to cross. M
Thread: What makes a Woman A woman (the face! before you start!) | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
"...the race issue was mentioned a little on the site Anton gave." I dug around there a bit. Their only comment on race that I could find was in "The Evidence," which asserts that if their theory is true, then the PHI mask should apply to faces thought beautiful by all cultures. They illustrate that it "does" with images of 13 Caucasian women and the Egyptian Queen Nefertiti. "All cultures"? A timeline tour of Western beauties of the centuries, anchored by a sculpture that we, not necessarily the ancient Eqyptians, regard as beautiful. Not very persuasive. They finally lost me when I got to the "archetypal theory" and their assertion that fitting the PHI ideal is not just an image of "beauty," but an image of "humanness." I Quote: "That is, it is the way we identify our own species, and individuals within our species." Wow. Combine that with the page that shows an "attractive" Aryan face degenerating by steps into an "unattractive" face with a broad nose, and I think I know this place I've wandered into, better than I wish I did. I'll shut up now. Except to say that Stephen Jay Gould has written some excellent books and essays on racially and culturally biased "sciences."
Thread: What makes a Woman A woman (the face! before you start!) | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
"Noone has mentioned race or culture. Human beings are human beings." Yeah, I know that nobody mentioned it. That's why I mentioned it. Human beings are indeed human beings, but standards of beauty are culturally determined and therefore culturally biased. The discussion is fascinating, but let's not lose track of the fact that we are talking about a specific, if broadly influential, concept of beauty/feminity, not biological imperatives. A "real woman" can have a face like Leo McKern; it doesn't make her less a woman, and to say her face is not "female" is a bit impertinent. The discussion of what makes a "female" face is about forms (in the Platonic sense), not reality (in the bio/physiological sense). And forms are things cultures create. Let's not lose track of that.
Thread: What makes a Woman A woman (the face! before you start!) | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
At the risk of starting a flame, has anyone considered that there is a bit of cultural bias in this whole conversation? How well do, for example, Hindi sculptures of beautiful women fit all these assumptions? I guess I'm curious about the question rather than the answer. What do we mean by "makes a woman a woman"? Are we looking for the details of a stereotype (that is, a mental representation rather than an artifact)? Or for the biological/physiological differences--which is where this started, sort of? See, the trouble is, what makes a woman a woman is one thing--the one warned about in "before you start." Women who look like Golda Meir are still women, neh? What makes a woman's face is genetics and hormones, and we all have both the male and female hormones surging around inside, regardless of sexual orientation or identity. A woman with "excess" facial hair (Anna Magnani, for example, or Katy Jurado) can be utterly and vehemently female, and a man with long eyelashes, delicate features, and a barely discernable adam's apple may be as heterosexual as a tomcat. So we are talking about the visual clues that tell us a man in drag is a man in drag, that Julie Andrews is not Victor but Victoria. Then we are talking about culturally determined and racially charged assumptions. Not making any accusations here, but think about it. The Western tradition of white beauty does not become universal when it decides to welcome in the occasional dose of melanin.
Thread: Rumors on SR3 Uncovered | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Have to add my vote to the "Better later than buggy" crowd. The other option was what got us into this mess, after all. Shouting about wanting it NOW does no good, however justified the sentiment. You want it now, regardless of its condition? Didn't we already go there? A couple of times? If SR3 is not a sizeable step forward in bug fixes, it may be perceived as a sign that the product will always be unreliable and unstable. That is in no one's best interests, I think.
Thread: Scum-sucking, puke-laden adware bushwhackers in Freestuff... | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I don't "blame" companies for trying to protect their products, any more than I object to people locking their front doors. That was not what I meant at all. But copy protection schemes that make products unstable, interfere with the operation of the machine, make modifications to your computer that affect other programs, are installed covertly, and do not have documented ways of being uninstalled-- These are things that show the company is more interested in thwarting thieves than in satisfying customers. And when those companies have been glutting themselves at my expense for decades, my lack of sympathy may seem uncharitable, but there it is. Bill Gates didn't become the richest man in the world by selling at fair market value. If a department store adopted the policy of searching anyone who attempts to leave the store, would you come back? If you had to sign something that consented to being strip searched on demand, would you go in? Sadly, I think most Americans, for all their lip service to personal privacy, would. Well, not me. Of course thievery exists, and of course there are companies that have suffered for it. But I think calling the thoughtless nastiness of common "protection" schemes "clumsy" is much too generous, however. If a storekeeper starts shooting "suspects," I don't care how often he's been robbed; I'll shop elsewhere. I have had copy protection hose hardware and my OS. Haven't you? I once bought a game that wouldn't work because of the copy protection, and the store where I bought it wouldn't take it back, 'cause I might have copied it. Right. That is insane, and we put up with it. Greedy, above-the-law pigs like MS have set the tone (and created a model) for everyone, and my point is simply that I will, as I always have, express my views with my wallet. I used Quattro Pro for years because Lotus expected me to wait for them to mail me a new disk (assuming I could REALLY PROVE I ever owned their product) if their flimsy, $500 piece of mylar failed. In the specific case of Intuit, I think the notion that they got cheated because people "loaned" their copies to others is a bit fuzzy logically. Software licensing is full of lunacy, most of it on those pages none of us every read, in the EULA. But that is another thread.
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: Poser5 "Morph Putty Tool" - Does it work? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL