To provide a more usable test scene I have deleted all the objects from my original scene. The lights and cameras have been left just as they were. I have replaced the original objects with three Poser primitives for illustrative purposes. I understand it's ok to include them in publicly distributed scenes.

A zip file containing the scene will be attached in a follow up post(remove the .txt extension).

The Poser (top) and Lux (bottom) renders are shown above.

Quote - Sorry, it's in PoserLuxExporter_workers.py.

Thanks Dizzi. I've made the amendments now, but it seems to have made no difference at all :-(
The output from Luxrender remains just as it was before, bearing little relationship to the POV in Poser.

While I know Python, I don't know much Geometry so I'll leave this little matter to someone cleverer!

I'm in no rush to use Luxrender so I'll await further developments. I'm sure it'll all get sorted out in the end.

Quote - Laurie:
open camexport.py and search for "fov = "
  change the part after the = so the line reads "

        fov = 360 / pi * atan(12.75 * min(1.0, float(params.resolutionY)/float(params.resolutionX)) / focal)

" (keep the spaces!)

open PoserLuxExporter.py:
find: "camparams = self.globalParameters.get("Camera", exdict())"
add after:

        camparams.resolutionX=resolutionX
        camparams.resolutionY=resolutionY

Which version of PoserLuxExporter.py does this code apply to?
The text string "camparams = self.globalParameters.get("Camera", exdict())" does not appear in my version (1-14b) and the only references similar to camparams are commented out and actually spelt cam_params.

Quote - If it's any consolation to anyone, Reality users are having the exact same problem with their plugin.

It shouldn't be a consolation to anyone. While I use Poser exclusively because I don't like DAZ Studio (most likely my problem rather than Studio's), I'd actually like to see users from both camps having no problems and getting great renders. It'd be so nice, wouldn't it, if everyone could be happy and having fun with these great tools, regardless of which camp they sit in? It's a shame this hobby has become so divisive, I think.

Oh, and just in case that came across the wrong way - I know you're not the sort to encourage divisiveness (quite the opposite, I've noticed). Rather, my comments are to the community in general.

Besides, if Reality didn't have any problems I'd be pleased, because it would give us more reason to be optimistic that there are solutions to be found to all problems as LuxPose is developed.

I switched to inches a while ago so that I could follow all of your tutorials :-)

Perhaps it's the rounding in the Poser display panel.
e.g.: DollyZ, which I quoted as -93.12, is actually -93.115921 when expanded.

Well I think it's great.

Even if this is as good as it ever got, this would work for me and make LuxPose an essential tool.

Quote - Your camera coordinates mean nothing without knowing what your Poser display units are.

Meanwhile, I get a similarly messed up point of view, so it's not you.

Unfortunately I have to work and can't investigate it deeply. Perhaps odf or adp will have time.

Thank you BB. Poser display units are inches. I'll not worry over camera POV's until later in the project then.

Some additional information:

LuxRender version: luxrender_CVS_250810_x64

Found in the Luxrender scene file:

start Poser camera "Main Camera"

LookAt -0.0620110183954 0.149866908789 0.132420003414 0.134735606876 -0.334942711458 -0.719783257294 -0.0788638485802 0.858550479707 -0.506627641549
Camera "perspective" "float fov" [55.5656650046]

end Poser camera "Main Camera"

Attached Link: Full size image of original scene

The attached image shows the scene as rendered by Poser at the top, and by LuxRender at the bottom. Ignoring the odd missing material which I can resolve myself, I am perplexed by the huge discrepancy between the two camera views. Neither image has been cropped at all.

While I'm happy to investigate this further myself, I also don't believe in reinventing the wheel. If anyone knows why the camera views should be so different, or can give me some pointers as to where I should start looking, it'd be appreciated.

Some information which might be useful to anyone willing to help:

Windows XP Pro x64 SR2
Poser Pro 2010 SR1
PoserLuxExporter_alpha_1-13a

Poser Main Camera used:
Focal: 24mm
focus_Distance: 206.4
fStop: 2.8
DollyZ: -93.12
DollyY: 6.858
DollyX: -1.886
zOrbit: 11
xOrbit: -29
yOrbit -13

The full size Poser image can be viewed in my Rendo gallery.

Edited: Nudity advisory added.

"These are allegations for which ZERO evidence has been produced."

Because it's being deleted by the moderators when posted.

Agreed!

Working with a dual monitor setup it has been a real boon and made working with Poser so much easier.

Quote:
"The science of gamma-correction has little or nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with what a renderer does: uses linear data to process colours.

That's it.

Why is no one listening to that? Why all the hubbub, anyway? If you feed a sausage-maker eggs when it expects meat, you're going to get something like sausages, but not really. If you feed a render process sRGB data when it expects linear data...

There's no point to continue. No wonder BB started to lose his cool.

Art is art. Rendering is something software does. One is not the other."

Absolutely right.
Which is why statements from leading GC adherents such as "if you don't use GC all you'll produce is crap" are so misleading and unhelpful. Given the context in which they've been made the message comes across as: "if you don't use this mathematical technique when rendering then you can only produce crap artwork.

I fear it's the technical bods themselves that have blurred the lines and confused matters, and then they get upset because the distinction between art and rendering appears not to be clear to everyone.

According to the topmost line on this page, there are 5136 artists currently online.

If SamTherapy's right and none of them are here, where are all the buggers? Let's go find them and poke sticks at them.

The issue has never really been GC. Nobody minds being advised of a useful technique that might help them in their endeavours. Why would anybody?

It's always been about the way it's presented, which has often been rude, patronising and inconsiderate. Wolf's example is but one of countless that could have been given.

Does it matter?

Depends. See the antipathy, devisiveness and resentment that's been generated. You just have to decide whether any of that matters. For some it will and for some it won't.

We all know that you have to be thick-skinned to survive in public internet forums, but that doesn't mean anyone should go out of there way to make people feel ill at ease in this one.

As I've said above, I'm a GC advocate. I love it and am very grateful for the knowledge and tools that have been made available to me for free.

But I don't play an active part in any GC debates here simply because I don't want the embarrasment of being associated with the arrogance all too often associated with the GC 'message'.

If anybody asks me in private about GC I recommend it strongly and explain why. I would, however,  never, ever suggest that they can only produce 'crap' without it.

Call it coddling. I call it politeness.

Ok, let me say up front that I do use GC and that I'm immensely grateful to those who figured it all out, explained it and showed us how to use it, and all for free too. Kudos to them.

That said, I'll tell you why this issue is so divisive:

Time and again I have seen, in technical threads dealing with GC matters, comments such as 'If you don't use GC all you get is crap' and, "Without GC all you produce is rubbish'. Those are the actual words used.

And for many people that is simply rude and insulting, and possibly demoralising. It's also not the truth, which only makes matters worse.

Artistic merit isn't just about GC (shh!) - it's about capturing somebody's imagination, intriguing them, inspiring them or making them think for a moment. It's about telling a story or touching an emotion. It's about amazing them.

And then somebody who might well have achieved all those things in their artwork has their entire portfolio rubbished just because of some yellow bloom or a few dark shadows! No wonder it gets people's backs up!

The comments in this thread by comparison have been much more diplomatic and considerate, to the effect that good pictures can be made even better with GC applied. Unfortunately that's not the usual message given out by the GC gurus in other threads.

GC should be on everyone's list of priorities, but it doesn't need to be near the top. There are things much more important -  the kind of things I mentioned above.

It doesn't help that all we ever see from the gurus is a blankly staring V4/M4 in a bland setting and no attempt whatsoever at artistry. It must be disheartening (and annoying) for your inspired and carefully crafted image to be relegated to 'crap' compared to these endless series of technical renders (which aren't always that good technically anyway).

I think the GC gurus should marry their undisputed technical wizardry with a little bit of diplomacy, or just common politeness. It can be done, as we've seen in this thread. It just so rarely is in other threads.

On occasion I've seen the most amazingly technically accomplished Poser images posted here, of V4 or Miki or whatever in a simple scene. Beautifully lit and wonderfully rendered. Some have looked almost like a photograph. I've been awed by them, and I mean that sincerely.

But then I've thought to myself, "If this image actually was a photograph, what would I think of it then?"
And usually the answer is: not much, actually. Not compared to the brilliantly creative photography seen here or on other dedicated photography sites. And then I realise that the Poser image's merit lies exclusively in the fact that it looks quite like a photograph. Clever, impressive etc., but not enough to make it a real work of art.

And then I'll see another image by somebody far less technically accomplished that has a bit of yellow bloom or some overly dark shadows or whatever, but see something in it that really excites my imagination.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Me? I'm going to keep trying to make art with cool ideas and use GC to make it look as good as I can. But I'm going to keep my priorities in order :-)