One of the above images was produced in D|S - the other in Poser 6, it is the same pz3 file, so same textures, same RDNA lights (with no shadows - thats just the way the light set is setup).

One image took about 10 mins to render the other image took about 16 hours.

The only difference in setup between the 2 is one of them has AO setup on 2 overhead lights.

One Program costs nothing - the other program cost ???? (Still haven't seen the statement) - but 109 euros.....

You judge and pick which is which

Hmm the give away was the AO, so B is Poser6, as there are AO shadows on B.... Although look at the difference between the back paw on the lion laying down... don't know what was going on there? Is there going to be a maximum render (with shadows etc) from both bits of software, that would be interesting to see the difference. 16 hours???? bloody hell, i don't even know how you managed that, i've never had a render longer that 3hrs

I dunno which is which but there's more fine detail in B and the lighting looks more natural apart from the lack of contrast in what little ground shadowning there is.

I'm going against the grain and saying that B is DAZ Studio. Just because you don't always have to spend a fortune to get good quality results.

I wont give the answer just yet - and I don't think I'll go for a maximum render - 16 hours was long enough. I know what caused the slowwwww render but to say so now would give away the answer....

The only difference in setup between the 2 is one of them has AO setup on 2 overhead lights. In other words, one of them's an apple and the other an orange ;)

"The only difference in setup between the 2 is one of them has AO setup on 2 overhead lights"

My question would be, why are you using AO on 2 lights, which is overkill, and probably increasing rendertime twofold.

Unless you worded it wrong, that's a completely inefficient use of AO, and probably made the pic look worse. AO is best used on a diffuse IBL light, with setting tweaked. It can be used on standard lights, but it's rather counterproductive that way.. Message edited on: 04/23/2005 19:15

Another thing about AO and speed... If the mane on that lion is transmapped (I don't know if it is, because I don't have the model), then that will slow down your AO calculations dramatically. Exclude the mane itself (if possible) from raytracing by disabling "visible in raytracing" in it's properties, and it should also help to improve the speed. Of course, you won't get AO shadows on the mane anymore, but such is life. ;-)

I'll have to say that I don't like either image (foreground and background lighting do not match in direction or intensity), and whomever modeled those paws needs to go look at cat feet again. They look like what gets buried in the litterbox. The focal length is different between the images, but neither seems right for the scene (perhaps the camera height also needs adjustment). Sorry. Carolly

I'm guessing that B is P6. And the only odd thing I notice is that in A it doesn't look like the male Lions feet are on the ground

Carolly, Never claimed they were technical masterpieces, neither of them impress me either - the idea of the exercise was to compare D|S renders with Poser 6.:) So far some people have been fooled.....

I'd say image 'A' is Poser 6!, but only because some people have been fooled. Do I win a prize?? :)

Message edited on: 04/24/2005 01:44

I spent a little more time trying to get the same focal and camera position, except its hard when D|S imports your Posing Camera rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise.

Must say now it looks as though the quality of the D|S render depends a lot on lights.

The D|S image was rendered at full settings, so not too sure what happened with the D|S output this time The P6 render was at the next line back from full - I find I don't normally hit the memory wall at that setting.

I also had to reset the lioness pose after import into studio. I left that leg twisted as it gave a poser problem look to try and throw people off. I just shouldn't have mentioned AO

maxxxmodelz,
You picked it the transmap was the cause of the loooong render time, it sat forever on the mane - so that is one for everyone to watch out for.

Though not happy with this comparison - I thought first off that D|S came up pretty well against P6, but with a change of lights I'm not so sure, but I won't be rushing to write of D|S in a hurry.... EDIT: BTW in the first image "B" was Poser 6.

Message edited on: 04/24/2005 04:35

D|S handles light differently than Poser does, so if you wanted to make the most of lighting for an "Outside" render with models, a mixture of spotlights and point lights strategically placed (spots pointed more toward the background and ground plane, point lights to illuminate the character) That said, I'm not surprised that picture A (at the top) is D|S. It turns most of the Poser lights into Distant lights, and creates odd shadows. In the second set, I'd say A is P6, and B is D|S. MS

"Must say now it looks as though the quality of the D|S render depends a lot on lights." Rather glaring error here. The quality of the rendering engine cannot be judged on the use of lighting unless the exact lighting set up can duplicated in both systems. Lighting does not affect a rendering engine's quality, it affects an image's quality. Lighting is separate from rendering, most especially in these two applications, which have wildly different feature sets and approach the task from different viewpoints. A more fair example would be to use the ambient characteristics of the two programs and render without lights at all. That would give you an example of what the rendering engine can do in comparison -- but still, technically, isn't fair, since Poser's ambient model is surface based, while D|S uses an atmospheric base. Comparisons such as this do little good other than to further confuse the issue for many, as the two programs can easily achieve near equal results in the majority of renders as long as the user of the program understands it and works within it. THe things which should be looked at, but will forever be just as much a matter of aesthetics and opinion as choosing between those two images, are the factors of usability and feature set. The urge to determine which is the "better" of the two is reasonable on the surface, but once you think about it, you realize its Different ways of getting to the same thing. Go with the one you like based on using it. Otherwise it is apples to oranges. Can we compare them to Vray and Renderman with the shaders used in Robots, next?

sorry about that, ynsaen. By 'the quality of the render', I meant the image output, not the quality of the render engine ;)

is ok -- in re-reading I come across a lot stronger than I meant to. Sorry.

lol, it's ok, too....I think I took on tastiger's quote as my own!! That's what I get for doing 5 things at once, LOL

I do have used bad wording, I was meaning the image output not the render engine quality. Sorry for the confusion...

and now that we are all confused... Maybe we can say that each program handles lights, cameras, and rendering differently. Our job is to find the program which gives us the images we want without causing us to lose hair in the process. Carolly

"Maybe we can say that each program handles lights, cameras, and rendering differently. Our job is to find the program which gives us the images we want without causing us to lose hair in the process." Thanks Carolly - I think you have now put it into the correct perspective :)