@jura11, that is really lovely with the sharpness and the DOF focusing the attention on the figure.

vopehov506 posted at 12:14 PM Sat, 6 May 2023 - #4464435

This is the main issue with users here, they always want others to do for them ! Like poser if they cant handle it they say " Poser needs to get a feature that does it for them " even that it is already existent ! So Nop no tutorials . I had it not with ghostship2 as this user is trying to find solutions, improvements , that creators renders are OK and getting better .

Most people could use an instructor when dealing with an unfamiliar technique.  My older brother was able to teach himself electronics from books, but even that was a form of instruction.  Me, I needed a teacher to learn electronics to explain the concepts I could not grasp on my own.

Have a good life, sir.

My experiments with DOF are rather disappointing at the moment.  More experimentation is needed.

ghostship2 posted at 1:55 PM Wed, 3 May 2023 - #4464153

I don't see a need to post nudes in the forums. I don't. I have a few in my gallery because at some point I was getting more likes and comments if I posted a nude. Now I don't give a f***. Folks gotta remember that there are a lot of female artists here that don't need that in there face all the time.

It's terrible that someone can make a polite request and have someone else argue that because "it's always been that way", the victims simply have to put up with it.

Guys, can we get off discussing female body parts at least for a bit please? Objectifying is really rampant right now. I am not a raging prude, but I start to feel uncomfortable with where this is going. 

Thank you.

RedPhantom posted at 9:30 PM Tue, 2 May 2023 - #4464078

A question about using DOF. I can set the focus distance with out problem but how do you figure the fstop? 2.9 doesn’t tell me much. 

The main problem from a Poser standpoint is that one of the things that affects depth of field, to my surprise, is the size of the sensor.  This is something we don't really know in Poser.  We should probably ask the programmers what size sensor they are simulating.  Still, putting different variables in to the calculator (leaving sensor size entirely alone) might give you a feel for how they interact that might be useful to you anyway.  Using a search term of "calculating depth of field", I found a couple for you.  One apparently has a database of sensor sizes based on manufacturer and model number, the other wants an explicit size.  Since you'll be trying to get a feel for DOF rather than specifically using the calculators for a perfect solution, the sensor size is a little less important this time.  (We really should find out, if we can, though. I'd like to see that datum added to the manual in the DOF section for those people, especially newbies, who WANT to use a calculator for a perfect solution.)

https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/depth-of-field  This is an article on the subject with the calculator added to the article.

https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof  This is just a calculator.  The first one might be more useful for those of us who are not photographers.

Hope it helps.  Best of luck!

The other point not mentioned is the information that Ghostship2 departed in the skating post in that the timing shows that there is very little time penalty when using DOF which has not always been the case with Poser.

Thalek posted at 5:44 PM Tue, 2 May 2023 - #4464053

I'd like to slip my two credits' worth in.  DOF, like any other tool, depends on your intent.  I have to agree that with the skater, using DOF kind of diminished the old story, but told a new story: skater vs. pinup or portrait.  And as long as we're talking a comparison with movies, watch the editing.  In many movies, they don't blur the background and shift the focus (pun intended) until after you've already seen the background once and know the environment.  It's like the establishing shot in a way, where they show you the outside of the building before shifting to the characters inside one of the offices of that building.  Instead, they've established the environment first before intensifying on the character.

Sometimes, they will deliberately obscure the environment because the reveal is intended to invoke a response.  Such as in The Hunt For Red October, we see Ryan and Ramius close up, and Ramius warns Ryan to be careful where he shoots.  Then they switch to another angle and show that they're in the missile room, with 18 or so nuclear-tipped missiles in their launch tubes. The meaning behind Ramius's warning becomes clear AND emphasized at that point.

DOF is a tool for emphasis.  It's up to each creator to decide when they need to provide emphasis, and when they do not.  And like any tool, it can be under-utilized or over-utilized.  It is my speculation that the choice is more critical for a still because you only have once chance with one image to tell the story you want to tell. In a movie, you can do both if you want to, as the emphasis of the scene shifts dynamically.

I remember an episode of Ironside from the 70s where they used a technique that is a little more common now.  Instead of the traditional two camera set up, where you cut back and forth as the characters talk, they set up an angle where both characters were visible, and changed the DOF to focus on the character who was talking.

That said, all of you are better at this than I am.  I just wanted to point out that both sides have some right on their side for the differing opinions.

I have to agree with what you have said while, at the same time, I can understand where some people will be very frustrated when they see renders that could be improved with DOF.  A lot depends, as you have clearly laid out, the intent behind the render in question and you can mimic the movies if you wish by running a render followed by a close up which is what I was trying to do on the renders I posted here earlier.

The first has some DOF but the detail of the room is still discernible.

With the close up the DOF has bee further reduced.

This does at least prove it is possible with Poser and the more I play with DOF the easier I find it, but that is from someone who has a photographic background so i can see how some might struggle with the concept.  Even here the focus is fairly tight otherwise her face is in focus but parts of her body are not.

I like the way you simulated the appearance of real photographs; doubtless a result of your photography background. The close up image would indeed have a narrower field of focus (unless one used a zoom lens), compared to the more distant shot.

I quite agree that there are many images that can be improved with DOF, and that it must be frustrating to those with a more discerning eye than mine.  But that's the risk we all face when studying another person's work: we all have our own ideas as to how we would have approached it.  I myself rarely have that problem because I'm fortunate enough to be looking at the works of more skilled photographers and Poser users than I am, so if there is anything to criticize, I'm likely to miss it anyway.  [grin]

I merely wanted to point out, perhaps with a little insight as to my reasoning, that both sides were right, depending on circumstances and their specific artistic vision.  (I'm rather proud of one of my first uses of DOF, where the focus was primarily on the character's expression and the PADD he was studying in his hand. I titled it The Bill, and like most of us presented with a bill, he was not happy with it.  The background was a science fiction corridor and largely irrelevant to what I wanted to focus on.  It's in my gallery, if anyone's interested.)

nerd posted at 3:02 PM Mon, 1 May 2023 - #4463958

...Someday poser will get real particles and make this stuff obsolete...

I hope so. That would be awesome. Its been on my Poser wishlist for over a decade.   Even if its only Playstation 2 particles I'll take it.

I'd like to slip my two credits' worth in.  DOF, like any other tool, depends on your intent.  I have to agree that with the skater, using DOF kind of diminished the old story, but told a new story: skater vs. pinup or portrait.  And as long as we're talking a comparison with movies, watch the editing.  In many movies, they don't blur the background and shift the focus (pun intended) until after you've already seen the background once and know the environment.  It's like the establishing shot in a way, where they show you the outside of the building before shifting to the characters inside one of the offices of that building.  Instead, they've established the environment first before intensifying on the character.

Sometimes, they will deliberately obscure the environment because the reveal is intended to invoke a response.  Such as in The Hunt For Red October, we see Ryan and Ramius close up, and Ramius warns Ryan to be careful where he shoots.  Then they switch to another angle and show that they're in the missile room, with 18 or so nuclear-tipped missiles in their launch tubes. The meaning behind Ramius's warning becomes clear AND emphasized at that point.

DOF is a tool for emphasis.  It's up to each creator to decide when they need to provide emphasis, and when they do not.  And like any tool, it can be under-utilized or over-utilized.  It is my speculation that the choice is more critical for a still because you only have once chance with one image to tell the story you want to tell. In a movie, you can do both if you want to, as the emphasis of the scene shifts dynamically.

I remember an episode of Ironside from the 70s where they used a technique that is a little more common now.  Instead of the traditional two camera set up, where you cut back and forth as the characters talk, they set up an angle where both characters were visible, and changed the DOF to focus on the character who was talking.

That said, all of you are better at this than I am.  I just wanted to point out that both sides have some right on their side for the differing opinions.

vopehov506 posted at 6:33 PM Mon, 1 May 2023 - #4463981

Made some light changes, dimmed the lab lights and added a flashlight that points the zombie in the face from the corridor . Adding lights in certain cases sure enhances the render. Superfly render no postwork ( Right out of the Box )  Thank you for pointing it out that the last one was to Bright-Shiny :)

Well, that fixed the problem right quick.  I thought that I'd tried various combinations of length, width, and depth, but obviously, I did not.  Or I forgot to make the value non-animating.

I abase myself.  Again.

Thank you!

Now to make this a permanent scene so that I can reuse it.

Alternate way to keep the depth settings constant through the animation is to click on the arrow on the far right of the dial, go into settings, and turn off Animating.

Uhm, except I that forgot that the reapplying the pose every 30 frames overwrites the depth value I manually entered.  Doh!

nerd posted at 3:02 PM Mon, 1 May 2023 - #4463958

And I'm a bad nerd for not getting this stuff revved up and re-submitted to the Marketplace. Someday poser will get real particles and make this stuff obsolete. Until then ...

Increase the Depth for each of the sheets of rain. Select the Control for the Rain tool. The for the Depth control increase the Depth to someth8ing like .125 for the entire duration of the animation. That's most easily done with the graph tool. Open the graph and select all the keys for Depth and [Control] + Drag then up to fix the gap between the sheets of rain.

I'll give those instructions a try.  Sorry I've been so thick over the years.  One trick I have been using is parenting an object to the control triangles:  makes them easier to find to apply poses and textures.  Alternate way to keep the depth settings constant through the animation is to click on the arrow on the far right of the dial, go into settings, and turn off Animating. Less editing required, therefore less chance I'll make a mistake.  And I always make a few.  [sigh]

Thanks.  I didn't want to bother you again because you're busy with Poser 13 these days, and I apologize for interrupting that.

HartyBart posted at 5:59 AM Mon, 1 May 2023 - #4463892

I can't offer any advice on workarounds for animation glitches. Other than to consider rendering separately as an overlay layer, cutting out the glitchy frames (if that's possible) in a video editor, seamlessly looping, and then compositing the result loop over the scene in a video editor. 

But I would be interested to know what recent version(s) of Poser it can successfully run on. Can you say what version of Poser you're using please, and perhaps post a screenshot of the glitch?

Yes, I was uncertain if  some of the problems I was experiencing in Poser 13's animation editor were bugs or simply poor technique on my part (haven't used the timeline editor in awhile), so in addition to P13, I also tried it in Poser 12 and Poser 2014.  There are no Superfly materials in a product this old, unless it was updated since I purchased it on Daz, but it seemed to render adequately in Superfly as well as Firefly.

As you can see, the still images are pretty good.