Yup, Independence Day for us Yanks on the 4th... and my parking lot here in Chicago's financial district was less full than usual even today (the 7th). Plus, DAZ just lost AnneMarie, who I believe was their main customer rep for such things, to motherhood. But I think I've seen Steve Kondris post here that they're trying to get a handle on these sorts of things... they had a fairly large problem with duplicate orders when they switched servers recently, but I think they cleared that up (or at least thought so). Nevertheless, if you don't hear from them in a day or two, I'd send another e-mail.

Attached Link: http://www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/~blanz/

Attached Link: http://www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/~blanz/html/data/audrey.mpg

Not bad at all...and nicely composed, too. If you gave her hair a little more gravity (w/ a magnet or something), it would be just about perfect.

If you check out video software, you'll find some that advertise that they can render "beyond the 2 Gig limit," or words to that effect. So I would agree that it's probably your software.

Attached Link: http://www.geocities.com/vspramod/Links/friends/301.htm

Amazing is right...Thanks for the tip, Dave-So!

bijouchat is correct in a very broad sense about the EULA, though I might pick a few nits... It's true that the UK and Europe have libel laws far less protective of speech than in the US. However, having watched "Spitting Image" a few times, and noting that a recent #1 hit song skewered Gerhardt Schroeder at length, there would appear to be some breathing room in Europe for parody, satire and fair comment. Of course, to return to the larger point, one would have to be creative to get virtual porn made with the AMG clone to fall into one of those categories. In the US, protection of name and likeness generally does not come from trademark laws, which actually allow similar names (at least on a local basis) where there is little likelihood of confusion between two names. Indeed, within the past few months the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lingerie store named "Victor's Little Secret" in a case brought by You Know Who. Instead, there has been a growing trend in the US to recognize a "right to publicity," even of the dead, in statutory and case law. Internet domains are actually another issue, largely governed by international law. For example, Julia Roberts was able to stop a cybersquatter hoping to exploit her name, but Madonna was not, as there could be a madonna.com that did not simply exploit her image.

Two small points: 1. The legislative debates and the language of the law that was struck down are such that it was aimed much more at photo-manipulation from apps like Photoshop than 3D apps, particularly Poser. The theory is that ultra-realistic cg-kiddie porn, like real kiddie porn, could be used by pedophiles to help convince kids that what they were proposing was a normal activity. 2. I seem to recall that a new version of the law that was struck down, written to attempt to meet the Supremes' objections, has passed and is winding its way through the courts again. And while I enjoy a good legal debate, if your sole concern is the impact of such a law on you as a Poser artist here, I would simply note that I have been here since the Willow/Grey days, and have yet to see any image that would have fallen within the scope of this law. The TOS here have always been stricter than the that law, or the new one.

Hel-lo Eric... (Sorry, I can't pass the broad side of a barn.)

There was a press release with the DAZ Studio info up at their site. It was linked on the home page, but with the new site design, you may have to check the new menus.

Defintely!!!

I was one of those who looked, but didn't comment, as I thought I had nothing to say. Perhaps what I should have written was that my opinion of it depends on what you hoped to accomplish. As a technical exercise to learn morph injection, she looks attractive, and not overly Vicky, though imho, she has a philtrum problem common to a lot of V3 images (i.e., the width of the indent running from the nose to the upper lip).

If you intended more than that, I would have to say that it doesn't provoke any particular emotion or thought on my part. That could be my problem, of course, but perhaps not. Although you avoided one of my pet peeves, "the poser stare," by having the figure look into the camera, the expression is (again, imho) relatively neutral. It was this sort of thing that caused me to move on rather than comment, because there is a segment of the community that really wants only positive comments, and thus (unless I know the artist is actively seeking constructive criticism) I tend to say something nice or not comment. So if you asked for comments, I regret not having made them in the first instance.

FYI, just as background, my philosophy is that the strength of Poser is the relative ease with which pose and expression can be created. Accordingly, those are the things I tend to gravitate toward in viewing Gallery pics (and in rendering them for that matter). Which is not to say that I'm not impressed by good post-work, hair painting, etc., and one could argue that because Poser does pose and expression easily they should actually be less important than other factors. However, my modest level of talent currently keeps me focused on trying to learn Poser's strengths first, both by vieiwing and rendering.

I haven't gone to see it yet, but I imagine yours looks better than what Hollywood is doing to the Punisher right now. Check out the Punisher photo at aintitcool.com if you haven't seen it already. Looks like Marvel may have blown this one.

You might try e-mailing or IMing LordNakagawa, who I believe created it.