Poser 2010's library is the best to date and has made working with my extensive Poser content library a breeze. As it is the same library as P8's you need not let it enter into the equation, nor need you worry about it being flawed - it is not. It's highly configurable and you'll be able to set it so that it works with your content in the way you want it to.

Gamma Correction is a valuable facility that you might well want to use eventually, even if you prefer not to initially. Poser 2010 makes using it much easier.

@Bagginsbill: With Render GC I still use the material room to disable it for transparency maps etc. Am I correct in doing so? If so, then there is still some messing with materials, albeit much less than with P8.

I haven't yet seen a thread by the OP that didn't at least start out interesting.
And he's polite and doesn't use abusive language.
And he's considerate enough to prefix the threads with 'OT' so as to not waste anyone's time, even though most of the threads have at least some connection with this hobby.
And his thread titles usually give enough information for you to decide whether it's of interest or not.
And he doesn't break the TOS.

I can't see a problem, except with anyone who so readily wants to resort to censorship just because he doesn't like what someone else wants to talk about.

Some of the things the OP's wanted to say might challenge views otherwise taken for granted, they may be rhetorical or whatever. He's clearly thinking about things from an angle that most of us (ok, me:-) wouldn't even consider. Perhaps we don't consider it because we don't find it interesting or relevant. Or perhaps our thinking is simply too narrow-minded?

Whatever, it's highly unlikely that censorship and abuse of fellow members is likely to enhance the Poser community.

Serpenta & Serpentis

Attached Link: Full size

Nah, I know you're a good guy :-)

It really wasn't a question of thinking it was a waste of time - I simply didn't know that the Intensity slider wasn't displayed in the Poser render dialog, having only ever used D3D's dialog. Had I known it wasn't displayed I would of course pointed you to D3D's script. 

In the meantime, here's a low light render using GC and IDL. I think it works ok. Smoke is postworked, that's all. 'Full size' link takes you to the image in my gallery.

By the way, how's Doug doing?

Basicwiz,

I render using Dimension3D's script, available through the menu. The IDL strength slider is easily found in with all the other IDL settings. It took me a while to even think of moving it - I had no idea why I would want to. Then I did a low light render and none of my figures were casting shadows on the ground, because IDL was blowing them away. I turned IDL strength down to 0.4 and all my shadows came back, but I still had the benefit of IDL. It changed the balance between direct lighting and indirect lighting.

My apologies for being mysterious and enigmatic :-)

Attached Link: Full size

By the way, did you know you can turn down the strength setting of IDL? The default is 1, which ruins low light scenes, but if you turn it down to 0.1 or 0.2 you still get the benefit of IDL but keep the low light feel.

Wow. You've done some pretty impressive things in the past but this might be the best yet!
Amazing stuff. Sometimes I'm impressed when I see something done in Poser that I wouldn't have been able to work out how to do myself. But this is on an altogether different level, because this is stuff I wouldn't have thought anybody could do in Poser.

Cool. I'm sure all this has clarified things for the OP who was probably struggling with the simplicity of my original reply. I keep forgetting that hobbyist Poser users are often professional printers too and need to know these things.

Quote - Folks, please ignore "DPI" and concentrate on the pixel count. The pixel count determines the amount of information in the image, and if there's insufficient information in the image, you'll get things like jaggies.

True, but in order to know what pixel count you need you have to multiply the intended print dimension by the requisite DPI, so you can't just ignore it.

Quote - And it's PPI - Pixels Per inch. Setting it to 300, or anything else for that matter, is not some magic switch that makes everything OK.

Well, you're right of course, but that's just pedantry. Poser calls it DPI and whether it's right to do so or not isn't important - introducing other acronyms just confuses the matter for non-technical people.

Quote - I typically render at around 3600 x 2400 pixels: that's 12in x 8in at 300 ppi - not particularly huge in print terms.

But a render of that size would be unnecessarily time consuming if you were only going to print it at 3"x2", which is why DPI matters - it can be used to determine that you only need a 900x600 pixel image for your intended use. I think what you meant was that it doesn't matter what you set it to in Poser's render dimensions dialog box, which in a sense is true - but that is different from saying ignore it altogether.

300dpi will be good enough for a good quality print with no jaggedness. The magazine should be able to provide you with their submission standards, though.

To determine the pixel dimensions required for your submission you need to know at what size it will be printed (in inches) and then multiply that by 300. So, for example, if it will be printed 3 inches wide, then your horizontal dimension needs to be 900 pixels. 3000x3000 would allow for prints up to 10 inches in both axes.

Attached Link: Full size version

Some very nice work going on here.
Posette looking good too!

Quote - i think it's your camera scale--you've got the poser cam scaled up to 200%+ & when i reset it to 100% it looks just like the luxrender.  so try changing that & see if that does it for ya.  interesting problem.

Yay! Spot on - that's the problem solved.
I have no idea why the camera was rescaled - it's not something I've ever done consciously so was probably mentally blinded to the reading on that dial.

So it was me after all :-)
Huzzah!

Quote - when I went to render your test scene is there a reason you have it set to render at half instead of full? that could be part of the problem

The problem originally manifested when I was rendering at full size. I just dropped it down to half to make it easier to post example images here. Full,half or quarter size makes no difference to the end result in Luxrender, so far as I can see.

Did you get the same results though? I'd be interested to know if this issue can be replicated on someone else's system.

I know full well someone's going to point out something obvious I've done wrong in a minute and that I'll feel like a fool, but hey, it might as well be me someone else :-)

Windows XP Pro x64
Poser Pro 2010 SR1 (Units=inches)
Luxrender version CVS_250810_x64

Luxrender settings:
Kernel: Linear
Sensitivity: 50
Exposure: 1/250
FStop: f8
Default light group gain: 0.1