Quote - You have Pro - are you rendering with gamma correction enabled? If so, your V4 has a goofy shader on it that causes trouble. Most of them do.

Also, if you have displacement maps, you must tell Poser Pro not to apply the render gamma to those images. They are data, not pictures, but Poser can't tell the difference. There are various tools to help with that.

But first we need to know if GC is the cause.

Wow! That did the trick! V4 looks wonderful, and so does the dress.

Behemoth, on the other hand... Well, the shadows and light look very realistic on his skin, but the texture doesn't show any depth. With poser4 + shader tree the veins and muscle tone were visible. Gave it that rough, realistic touch.

EDIT: Nevermind.   :)
I added the displacement maps. It made all the difference. Obsidian sharp! Oh well, I'll just upgrade my CPU and RAM, to make the rendering faster.

Quote - there's your problem right there. remove the shaders and yes, the figures will look bad. you can't use them and poser 4, since P4 does not use shaders for 5 and above.. and these figures were made and textured for 5 and above. sorry, but if you want them to look the same with the shader tree you can't use poser 4.

OK.

Somehow I took for granted that Poser Pro could use the poser4 renderer on figures made for 5 and above. I mean, it's great to have Firefly, at least for artwork, but for animations there should be another option within the software. My previous animations were in the cartoon genre so I didn't mind that there was no shader tree.

The Firefly settings require so much more work and attention and, if you adjust the automatic settings, the closer you move to "Draft" the less sharpness there is. And the closer you move to "Final" the rendering takes an unbearable amount of time!

Just did a Firefly render with Automatic settings set to "Final". The texture is too smooth. No veins, no true-to-life look. As somewhat of a novice, I still find the poser4 renderer better than Firefly, and easier to use. If only they could have made the shader tree available for animations, and if you could select which figures to render with shader tree and which ones without, I would be so happy...

Try Audacity. Use a search engine to find it. It's free and has many many functions. So far I have only used it to create small child voices (even little girls) and it's worked pretty great. Just change the pitch (without changing the tempo).

Sometimes when pitching up the voice gets a robotic tone. That's the only negative, as of now.  

The version I have is in Swedish so I can't give you much of a tutorial.

Pool of ice AKA Matt

That's some pretty nice craftwork. Add some supernatural stuff and it will be awesome. Getting realistic motions is tough business, but I reason "if I wanted it realistic I would use a regular camera and film real people", and therefore realism is not my highest priority. It's the larger-than-life aspect that fascinates me. Impossible camera movements and super abilities, and more. But I do wish I were as good as you at making a true-to-life everyday scene.

Keep up the good work!

PS. I'm lazy. Can someone briefly explain what "tweaking" means? DS. /Swede

Quote - I dont understand animation but do you have inverse kinetics ticked for both legs? ... (i'm just throwing this out there)

I think you just hit the nail on the head there. If my memory serves me right they were both ticked, but I'll double-check it. : )

The reason why I am more interested in animation than artwork is that I suck at the latter... I'd rather do a half-ass ( = half-donkey mind you) animation than fail completely at artwork.

Thanks a bunch. Not far from solving this mystery grin. I understand what you're saying, just have to adapt it to practical knowledge. You know, step-by-step procedures and what-have-ya.

Thankiez again