She seems to resemble Jessica Alba's face, then you see the body and think "JLo".......

PPI = pixels per inch DPI = dots per inch Pixels and dots are the same exact thing, only referred to different devices :) Pixels are for monitors, dots are for printers, both are the smallest amount of information you can obtain from the device. In reality, you can refer pixels as dots, as this is what they really are....dots ;) As a convention (or better, approximation), a monitor displays 72 pixels for every inch, providing you are using the "classical" resolutions: 800600 for 15", 1024768 for 17", 1600*1200 for 19" and so on. Obviously, a printer can put a greater amount of colored points in every inch, up to 1440 and over, hence the little confusion: when you set your DPI (or PPI, same thing) in conjunction with the image size in inches, you are really adjusting the image as it will be printed, not shown on your monitor, ok? EDIT: Damn, too much time rereading my post, beat me!!!!

Glad to be of help, and Happy New Year to you too :)

First of all, set preview of hair to texture shaded. I'm assuming that hair are a unique piece, such as a hair prop or the only visible part of the hair figure. Select them, and go to "object/create magnet", you'll see the three part composing the magnet element. The horseshoe part is the magnet itself, whose relative movement against the base (second part of the magnet, the straight bar) is what creates the modification on the figure. Third part is the zone, represented by a sphere, which is the influence zone of the magnet. Now, shape and move the zone using scale and translate dials until it is approximately around the problematic area, and move/rotate the base such as the magnet curve is in the direction you want tu push/pull the hair. Finally, simply increase the YTrans on the magnet, and you'll see the hair begin to raise from the poke-through. To refine you can play with the zone, increasing its size o rotating it to better fit the poke-through area; you can rotate the base to a better angle to adjust the effect of the magnet, and so on. Notice that the zone influence is bigger toward the centre of the sphere representing it, so don't be afraid to increase its size to encompass even more than the poke through area, just don't overdo it. And if you have Poser7 and don't want to use magnets, the Morph Tool is your friend... :) Problem is...I never used it until now, so I can't help there.

Just pose the hair the way you want, then use magnets to eliminate collisions, it's really that simple.

If you use the correct resolution for your monitor, and you want to view an image at an aproximate dimension in inches, you can use the 72 DPI rule, you are not that far apart. Correct resolutions are 800600 for a 15", 1024768 for a 17", 12801024 for a 19". Then there are blockes like me that uses 1152864 in a 17"....obviously, I must change the numbers if I want to see how big would be my image when printed. I mean, that is only a basic rule, and EVERY photo manipulating program uses that as basic setting. And yes, it's almost meaningless, but it's a basis :)

Quote - ANd again, now the right file :blushing: :cursing:

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: Well, I don't see too much of a difference, at least not while I open the images in three separate windows and I switch through them. For what I'm seeing, every subtle difference is going to be flattened by the first adjustment you'll do later in postworking, so...I'll call you HawkEye from now on :biggrin:

Quote - In other words let's say you render an image of 1000 x 1000 pixels at 300 DPI.  If you then open photoshop; load the image, and convert it to 100 DPI, then the converted image is now 3000 x 3000 pixels(without any loss of detail)

Ehr...isn't the other way around? If you decrease DPIs in Photoshop, the image is smaller than before (obviously, I'm assuming that you are not changing the overall dimension of the PRINTED image). > Quote - You don't have a printer set to print at 72 DPI.  72 DPI is the resolution your monitor uses.  A cheap inkjet printer, now a days, is at least 720 x 720 DPI - 1440 x 720 DPI, or more.

It was only an example :)

Quote - As regards rendered images, you do get more detail per square inch with Higher DPI settings in your "Render Dimensions" window, providing the Max.Texture setting in "Render Settings is suitably high.

Sure, more details when printed, but the rendered (=on screen) image would be the same, whichever DPI you use. From what I know DPI isn't used for textures, and if you look closer to the render dimensions dialog you can even see that it is greyed out if you use "match preview window": as this is only a way to say "render at that dimension in pixels" and the render is always visible in the preview window whichever dimension you use, can't see why it's greyed, if it's true what you say... Just on the topic at hand, though, I've noticed a worse image quality in the P7 renderer against P6, both in lightning and in texturing; for the latter I can blame texture filtering...but for the lights??? So, I think the problem lyes elsewhere than simple DPI settings...

Oh well, then there's the texture resolution to take into account, but it has nothing to do with DPI settings in the image. As other said, your max texture dimensions would be set according to the image size; it has to be done in pixels, remember that you are really working on a screen, not on a printer. On the other side, Poser7 doesn't even seems to use that feature so you're OK everytime, if you use marketed textures which seems to be always 4000 up in size (more than sufficient for a good professional work, as it's uncommon that the textured object is larger than that). P.S. - On a side note: not really sure, perhaps there is an image property that tells the printer what DPI setting it must use, and it's triggered by the DPI setting on the rendered image. I don't think so, but I'm not a graphic editor and I know that every image can carry a load of info in itself, from date/time of creation to adjustment levels, so everything can be........

You have a printer, whose resolution is fixed at, say, 72 dots per inch (DPI), a dot being the smallest paper space that it can fill with its ink or toner. Then you have an image set up to 300 DPI, fine. Do you think your printer would produce a 300 DPI image? I don't think so :) DPI is significant if, and ONLY if, you are setting your RENDERED image to be X inches to Y inches WHEN PRINTED; really, it's only an helper to find the correct render dimensions in pixels for the desired print dimensions in inches. If you have Photoshop (or even GIMP, the idea is the same) you can test this: - set units to inches, then set up a new image 5x5 inches with a 300 DPI resolutions, then switch units to pixels and note the dimensions of the image. - do the same, but now set your resolution to 150 DPI, and note the new numbers after switching to pixels again: do they are exactly half of the previous ones? One pixel on the video screen corresponds to one dot of the printer device, and while screens have about 72 pixels for every inch, printers can have (and DO have) much higher resolutions, up to 4000 and more dots per inches in professional (and costly) devices. When you are watching a 10x10 inches image on your screen, you are really seeing a 1072=720 pixels image; to print this 10x10 inches image on a 300 DPI device, you must have a dimension in pixel of 10300=3000. You can set it directly, but the inches+DPI units can help you to find the correct dimensions in two easy steps, if you want. I said: INCHES+DPI...if you are working with pixels as units, DPI is only a screen filler :D

Happy new year to you too. Just a reminder: as I don't even recall Vicky there, but I see a clear Sidney close to you, I must advice you not to drink too much. You see, when you arrive home after the party and the girl in the passenger seat isn't the usual one....... :lol:

A couple minutes to test again... I'm seeing the same sluggishness with V3, with a bit more responsive hand camera but a really slow posing camera (it seems even slower than V4). Is it possible that the chain length from the camera up to the universe, as seen from the Yerarchy window, could lead to this? As I seen it, the longer it is the slower the preview is... If so, then the problem isn't in the graphic subsystem, time to go shopping for a more powerful machine (and 150$/gig RAM sticks :D). Thanks again :)

Done already: no joy, responsive main camera, sluggish hand and face cameras with a lonely untextured V4. Wireframe view, or textured figure and shaded view, no differences. Only workaround is using the fast preview mode. WAIT!!! The unresponsive cameras are the parented ones: head, hand and posing. Setting the main to point at something, it becames one of the worst among them! Seems as if the problem is thinning down to memory transfers between graphic card and CPU, and is related to the yerarchy of the figure...but WHY? And then, if I can work with a multimillion poly scene in Vue without hassle, then something is broken in Poser, no doubt... Thanks for your response, and happy holiday :)

Oh well, now it is going to be interesting :biggrin: