I would consider switching to DS if DAZ could talk bagginsbill into creating VSS and a PR4 skin shader for Daz Studio.  I do not know how to gamma correct materials in DS.  Non-GC images rendered in DS without postwork look just as bad as their counterparts in Poser.

Quote - That would be one reason - but the bigger reason, one I can't explain the reason for, HBorre - is that my makeup shaders don't behave right with the renderer GC... but work fine with the material based GC. Yes, I've made the gamma correction 1 for all non-colour maps, but what happens is the colours aren't anywhere near as saturated, so I have to turn the values up. I'll show you what I mean.

...

Robynsveil, in the thread below the OP set the custom gamma to 0.1 for the eyebrows and lashes.  I don't know why it worked in render GC but it worked.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3810471&ebot_calc_page#message_3810471

Correction.  In my recent post, the line

      s = EmptySurface().Alternate_Diffuse = BLACK * h;

should have been

      s = EmptySurface().Alternate_Diffuse(BLACK * h);

Sorry about the boo boo.

Blue Siamese.  Left image = Non-GC.  Right image = render GC.

Oops sorry BB.  After re-reading your explanations a few more times, I realize I didn't get all of what you mean.  I also missed a few crucial bits in the cat fur shader.  So here's the original "non-GC" cat fur shader.

n = Noise();
n.x_Index = 4 * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");
n.y_Index = 4 * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");
n.z_Index = 4 * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");
n.min = 0.3;
n.max = 0.4;

h = Hair();
h.Root_Color = BLACK * n;
h.Tip_Color = WHITE * n;
h.Specular_Color = BLACK;
h.Highlight_Size = 0.01;
h.Root_Softness = 0.25;

s = EmptySurface().Alternate_Diffuse = BLACK * h;

s.Diffuse_Color = WHITE * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");

s.Diffuse_Value = 1.0;

Here's what I'm guessing render GC will do.

n.x_Index = 4 * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));
n.y_Index = 4 * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));
n.z_Index = 4 * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));

h.Root_Color = AGC(BLACK) * n;
h.Tip_Color = AGC(WHITE) * n;
h.Specular_Color = AGC(BLACK);

s.Alternate_Diffuse = AGC(BLACK) * h;

s.Diffuse_Color = AGC(WHITE) * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));

output = GC((s.Diffuse_Color * s.Diffuse_Value) + s.Alternate_Diffuse);

Am I correct or just totally dead wrong?

Quote - ...

Every color in any color chip in the material room, whether a material or a light or the background, is assumed to be a color you picked on the basis of how it looked. That's a gamma corrected value. It gets changed to linear.

...

All the light sources, equations, reflections, etc. (all the factors adding up to a color on a pixel) are added together linearly.

The final value is gamma corrected.

BB, thanks for the explanations on render GC.  Would you take a look at the example below and let me know if my understanding of render GC is correct (or incorrect)?

I bought a fur product for the Millenium Cat from a vendor at Content Paradise.  The fur is a collection of props that look like hairs.  As expected, the fur shader is not gamma corrected.  Here's the shader in pseudo matmatic notations:

n = Noise();
n.x_Index = 4 * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");
n.y_Index = 4 * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");
n.z_Index = 4 * ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg");
n.min = 0.3;
n.max = 0.4;

h = Hair();
h.Root_Color = BLACK * n;
h.Tip_Color = WHITE * n;
h.Specular_Color = BLACK;
h.Highlight_Size = 0.01;
h.Root_Softness = 0.25;

s = EmptySurface().Alternate_Diffuse = h;

If I turn on render GC, will it first anti-GC each color and image and then GC the end result, as shown below?

n.x_Index = 4 * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));
n.y_Index = 4 * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));
n.z_Index = 4 * AGC(ImageMap("BlueSiamese.jpg"));

h.Root_Color = AGC(BLACK) * n;
h.Tip_Color = AGC(WHITE) * n;
h.Specular_Color = AGC(BLACK);

s = EmptySurface().Alternate_Diffuse = GC(h);

Will appreciate any advice you provide.  Thanks.

Quote - Is that indeed the problem? Are we linearising/correcting every node in the shader? Even nodes that we don't want this to be happening to? Inquiring minds, etc... :blink:

Good question.  I myself am pretty uncomfortable with render GC since I have no clue how PP2010 gamma corrects my objects and figures when I turn on render GC.  Perhaps bagginsbill can shed some light on this matter for us?

Quote - As an example of something you may not be aware of, consider the following x = AGC(Blend(a, b, f)) or

x = Blend(AGC(a), AGC(b), f)

One of these is identical to render GC, the other is not. Under specific circumstances, these two produce the same output, and in other cases produce diffrrent output. Whey they differ, one of them is identical to render gc and the other is not. Can you say which is identical to render GC? Forgive the typos, I am in Edgartown Martha's Vineyard oa sailboat and only have my ipad which is hard to type on.

It looks like the first and second equations will always yield different results base on my simplistic experimentation.  The first equation seems to consistently yield a higher value than the second equation.  If x is the luminance of the object, then the first equation would be identical to render GC since my poser objects tend to look washed out each time I turn on render GC.

In which specific circumstances will the first and second equations yield the same result?

Quote - > Quote - As an example of something you may not be aware of, consider the following x = AGC(Blend(a, b, f))

or

x = Blend(AGC(a), AGC(b), f)

One of these is identical to render GC, the other is not. Under specific circumstances, these two produce the same output, and in other cases produce diffrrent output. Whey they differ, one of them is identical to render gc and the other is not. Can you say which is identical to render GC? Forgive the typos, I am in Edgartown Martha's Vineyard oa sailboat and only have my ipad which is hard to type on.

The first equation is identical to render GC ?

x = AGC(Blend(a, b, f))

Which cases will produce different output? 

I'm rarely successful with render GC.  When I turn on render GC, PP2010 gamma corrects everything in the scene.  There isn't a handy GU interface that would allow me to selectively turn GC off for specific Poser objects.  Will PP2012 allow me to turn GC on for background props but leave GC off for foreground characters?

On second thoughts, if I were a software developer programming GC in Poser Pro, I would anti-GC each color first before blending them.  So, the second equation is identical to render GC.

x = Blend(AGC(a), AGC(b), f))

Quote - As an example of something you may not be aware of, consider the following x = AGC(Blend(a, b, f))

or

x = Blend(AGC(a), AGC(b), f)

One of these is identical to render GC, the other is not. Under specific circumstances, these two produce the same output, and in other cases produce diffrrent output. Whey they differ, one of them is identical to render gc and the other is not. Can you say which is identical to render GC? Forgive the typos, I am in Edgartown Martha's Vineyard oa sailboat and only have my ipad which is hard to type on.

The first equation is identical to render GC ?

x = AGC(Blend(a, b, f))

Which cases will produce different output? 

I'm rarely successful with render GC.  When I turn on render GC, PP2010 gamma corrects everything in the scene.  There isn't a handy GU interface that would allow me to selectively turn GC off for specific Poser objects.  Will PP2012 allow me to turn GC on for background props but leave GC off for foreground characters?

Quote - Yes I'll publish a scatter version.

Super.  This answer alone will entice me to buy PP2012.  Thank you BB.

Quote - In rereading the thread, I had missed this line from BB...

"I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"

I should put it on a tee-shirt...

Hear hear... :)

Quote - Here is a VSS Skin Template shader - work in progress. Load it into Template Skin on a VSS control prop.

The important thing to examine here is how the specular behaves - that's the dominant new thing. I'd like to see results, good or bad, and perhaps comparisons with PR3 using various textures. I don't have a lot of textures, nor a lot of time to test. So if you guys think this shader is wonky, please let me know. It's got quite a few new ideas in it.

Bagginsbill, thanks so much for the PR4 skin shader.  The specular effect on the skin is amazing.  You're a genius.

Quote - All I see is another digital barbie as we see arise day after day in the marketplace. I'm sure lot's of people will have fun with her, but I fait to see why she needs to be in my runtime.

Hear hear...

Quote - Any folks lamenting the loss of various items from the Rendo marketplace, voice your concerns about it here.

How about what's been missing from the MarketPlace?  Would love to see well crafted faces for...

• Maggie Q (Nikita & Mission Impossible)

• Grace Park (Hawaii Five-O & Battlestar Galactica)

Quote - Here's a little peek at what I'm looking into in PR4 - it's got everything to do with specularity. 

In this render of P8's Ryan, I'm only using the color map - no bump map and no specular map. Observe the patterns in the bump and specularity - all procedural. It's not right yet, but it's directionally correct. (Click for full size)

Wow.  He looks great.  Any chance you might consider releasing PR4 just the way it is now?  I would love to try it on a V3 character whose morphs I really love, except that her textures aren't so great.  She has no bump map and no specular map.  PR3 greatly improves her appearance but without a specular map her skin looks a bit dull.