In addition to it being brighter, the distribution of the displacement has changed.

I moved the color out of the Clouds node, and into a Color_Math node, using the Pow function. Poser is "Input Gamma" correcting my color by raising it to the power 2.2 - I then raise it to the power 1/2.2, thus cancelling out what Poser did to my color.

This is tedious - I do a lot of very precise color math in some of my shaders, and I'll have to go through them all and add the anti-gamma setup I show here all over the place.

Quote - Re openGL: It's an old problem. Run windows update and openGL gets over-written by a naff windoz software emulation. You will need to re-install openGL, not just drivers. Last time I ran update it took my whole system down hard!

HUH? I can improve opengl in vista with another install? Where do I get it??

Too bad there is no Simple_Number node. Using a Math node is a teeny bit of timewasting, just to get a number in there.

Quote - OK This is a problem. We sometimes use "colors" on a node to represent displacement amount. Not because we want to, but because the node accepts colors, not numbers.

In those cases, use the user_defined node instead, it lets you define colors by number. The simple rule is that anything that you set as a color field gets gamma corrected, anything that you specify in numbers remains untouched.

So now I'm going to yank your chain a little bit.

Did you guys fix the bug in User_Defined? Perhaps you don't know about the bug?

It does not use the numbers you type in. Never has. It squares them.

If you type in .7, you get .49. If you type in .5, you get .25. The only numbers that work are 0 and 1, because 0 * 0 is 0, and 1 * 1 is 1.

Proof - examine this shader, preview, and render. Gamma is 1.0 here so gamma correction is not causing the problem. I have a UserDefined(.5, .5, .5), and another one that is UserDefined(1,1,1) plugging in Math_Function(.5). They should be the same. They are not. The UserDefined(.5, .5, .5) is producing RGB(63, 63, 63) instead of the RGB(127, 127, 127) that it should.

This has been the case forever. I cannot use numbers typed into UserDefined. I must type them into math nodes and I can plug those into a UserDefined(1,1,1) to get the color I want.

By the way, thanks for patiently explaining all this stuff to me back in November. I love the improvement from the Gamma correction, and I now totally understand and appreciate how the "Input Gamma" is being handled in the nodes, both for input colors and for input images. It requires a bit of careful thinking when doing math, but for basic visual shader design (with the GUI) it works perfectly.

Oh - one more thing. I'm using Final Release Candidate 192B and this may have been fixed since. When I change render gamma to 1.0, that material room Poser Surface preview is dark - i.e. what would be the internal results just before a gamma correction would be applied. But there is no gamma going to be applied. I should never see the internal results anyway, but in the case of Gamma = 1, it should be the same as external results, and it's not.
 

Quote - Poser's Smooth Polygon box in the render settings is SubD.

Are you sure about that? My experiments point to smoothing surface normals rather than modifying mesh density and smoothing. A true subD surface allows one to introduce increasing level of detail on a per vertex / per face basis.

Well both and neither. My understanding is that true subD (i.e. Catmull-Clark (spelling?)) is not what Poser does.

However, it does do micro-polygon displacements. Meaning it further subdivides (somehow) to make flat things round.

Examine these three lo-res spheres. The first has normal interpolation and smoothing disabled. (You disable normal interpolation by setting the "Crease angle" to 0.)

The second has normal interpolation, but no smoothing.

The third has both.

Poser's renderer is a REYES renderer, not "sub D" (Catmull-Clark subdivision).  They don't behave the same way, although with high-poly models the results can look similar.  The differences become very obvious with low-poly models (like a 6-side cube).  More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyes_rendering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catmull-clark_subdivision

Quote - I understand if you render in Max, Maya or Cinema4D then this will be an asset.

If you render in C4D skip Poser pro and spend your money on
interposer pro.

I suppose my question is do our python scripts still work?

Or will we need to wait for updates on the various scripts available?

My thoughts as to price - well I paid $AUD 399 for Poser 3 back in 1999 so I don't think that $AUD 528 for Poser Pro in 2008 is all that much of a price increase in 9 years - 'specially given the feature difference between Poser 3 and Poser Pro.....

I think we may have been spoiled with upgrade prices along the way from the 20th Century - I'll quite happily pay the $AUD 209 to upgrade - even if it is just to get 64 bit compatibility - I have the technology - may as well use it.

I am only hanging on to see what reports come out over the next few days....

Quote -
Probably not, but who cares - she's ugly anyway regardless of the mouth behavior. :) She's uglier than my favorite alien, P6 Jessie.

ROTFL! I doubt that was the intent of the meshes... I don't think you're supposed to bring a camera any closer than, say, 20 poser-sized meters. Great if you want to do big scenes (because rendering 100k-poly figures at a distance is kinda stupid, not to mention a colossal waste of CPU cycles). Also great for crowd generation.

...but close-up? Bleech. That's definitely not what they were built for.

I do like something I'm seeing with these figures - SM/Poser is wanting to get a subtle shift going from the constant barrage of close-up portraiture that one normally sees with Poser output, and maybe get out more larger scenes, like CAD/CAM shots and landscapes. DAZ already has the ancient stuff in their catalogue (e.g. Nude Young Woman and the like) that can suffice well enough, but this addition makes perfect sense from a pro standpoint.

I mean, if you're doing, say, a museum or auditorium foyer interior shot, you want the focus to be on the architecture, not the people in it (whose sole purpose for being there is to provide a sense of scale... and nothing more). Same with background figures... your focus is supposed to be on the dude or babe (or both) up front, not the guy picking his nose 100 meters away :)

/P

Quote - I suppose my question is do our python scripts still work?

Or will we need to wait for updates on the various scripts available?

Some don't.  The free Shaderworks as one example: I wanted to use it to quickly add all my runtimes into Pro (so I don't have to do them one at a time), but it can't because it looks for the file poser.exe, whereas the new file is poserpro.exe.

So basically, any file that looks up the Poser executable is pooched.

Baggins, thanks for responding.  I did lower the gamma to 1, but I think that it may be an issue of poser pro and python.  I keep getting this odd traceback error for the parmatic updater.  I have not tried real skin shader yet...so whether or not it's really a python problem I don't know for sure.

I can say shader spider works fine in poser pro, and I'm pretty sure I used most of PhilC's stuff, though not anywhere near all the features.

 subD and dead horse beating - 

REYES is a render engine type, subD is a surface type so I understand that they are not the same thing but can be used together. 

So you can subdivide a low poly cube in Poser as input and render a sphere as output? That is what subDs do, n'est pas? More important, you can subdivide a subD face for localized increased level of detail, take one of these new faces and increase detail and so on, so that your Level 0 is your base mesh, your Level 1 has some arbitrary detail, your Level 2 has arbitrary detail riding atop your Level 1 and so on.

So again, is the resultant mesh really a subD or is it a smoothed / normal interpolated poly mesh? Sorry if my tone seems harsh; it's not meant to be.

They do different things.  Subdivision actually generates new geometry permanently; depending on how smart the application is, that geometry can be used for all sorts of things including collision detection and physics simulation and deformation in a very predictable way.  Reyes polygon smoothing is a render-time effect and can't be used for collision, and sometimes produces some very inaccurate results when combined with things like Ambient Occlusion (up to Poser 7 at least, and I don't expect that was addressed) because the micropolygons that are created temporarily at render time aren't shaded in the way you might expect, since they aren't really "there".

Quote -

So basically, any file that looks up the Poser executable is pooched.

That should make things interesting with Vic 4 and Aiko 4......
:scared:

*Did you save, quit Poser, start Poser, then load?

Please confirm.*

a little late, but yes I did. Sorry but I've been busy all afternoon with installing vista 64bit.. I got it working now, I trying some testruns with poserpro.

Bopper.

Quote - > Quote -

So basically, any file that looks up the Poser executable is pooched.

That should make things interesting with Vic 4 and Aiko 4......
:scared:

Why not copy the executable somewheres else, rename it "poser.exe", then copy it back into the directory?

(Mac users can make a symbolic link in Terminal to save disk space and aggravation).

Quote - Here is the mid res female.

good lord.
i am just going to bite my tongue.

Agrees with Blackie.

Even Barbie is prettier!
  AFAIK they are supposed to be used as low-res crowds, But Helgard of Vanishing Point, has shown that doesn't have to be so simple and ugly as these models. (look on page three)

B.

Victoria 2 and Michael 2 have less polygons than the new MedRes figures, and look a LOT better!
Posette and Dork have about the same amount of polygons as the new LoRes figures, and look a lot better - especially with polygon smoothing enabled.

I'm looking forward to the release of Helgards figures - those previews are cool. I think that with polygon smoothing and good texture/displacement maps they can be used as foreground figures too. Maybe even portraits.

Actually aren't these the redistributable base figures as well that can be used to develop other figures?

Now that I think of it, as a base for developing a totally new figure, these can easily be used to look much differently.

How many polys was posette? She might even qualify as a low or med res figure now.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

So basically, any file that looks up the Poser executable is pooched.

That should make things interesting with Vic 4 and Aiko 4......
:scared:

Why not copy the executable somewheres else, rename it "poser.exe", then copy it back into the directory?

Indeed.  I already have a copy of poser.exe in a blank folder I use for installs anyway (so the new files are in their own folder, where I can fix them and organize as required).  Quite honestly, anyone who installs straight to the base runtime is making life more difficult for themselves.

I think it's more an issue of a long history of CL-EF-SM not fully developing the figures that are distributed with their software.  Like it or not, the default figures are definitely judged by the DAZ standard - simply because coming from a company there is a higher expectation of development, morphs, and features compared to what is currently available on the market.  On a side note, I'm definitely looking forward to Helgard's figures too :)

Well the only "Plus" I can see for the new figures is the ability to redistribute them freely if that's truely the case. If you can really redistribute the geometry and cr2 with characters you make in the face room and using the morph brush, that would make them handy too. (Not $200 handy to me, but handy.)

Quote - > Quote - Here is the mid res female.

good lord.
i am just going to bite my tongue.

LMAO!

I never thought I'd say it, but Jessi is actually attractive when you compare her with that!  I think someone at Smith Micro plays "The Sims"!

Good lord, that thing looks like a cross between Janet Jackson
and an eggplant.

Oh-la-la...that is one hot mama.
Marge Simpson or this one? Too many choices.

In the case of Poser Pro, most of the features were integrated into Poser 5 regular flavor.  At this point I can't afford $200 to upgrade, so I'll stick with Poser 7 for now and see what we get for Poser 8.  Other than the notorious POOF! to the desktop bug, I've really not had any real issues to speak of with P7.  I recently purchased Render Studio for Vue 6, so I'm more interested in rendering my scenes in Vue right now anyway.

BTW has there been any talk of a Poser 8 coming along?

Quote - BTW has there been any talk of a Poser 8 coming along?

Last I heard they wanted to get P7P out the door then they were going to start on P8.

Quote - Actually aren't these the redistributable base figures as well that can be used to develop other figures?
Now that I think of it, as a base for developing a totally new figure, these can easily be used to look much differently.
How many polys was posette? She might even qualify as a low or med res figure now.

yes, you can do a lot with morphing assuming that the base shape is just a little off and the rest is actually modeled professionally. i constantly complain about vicky's base shape, but i do not deny that underneath it is a professional quality model. i look at every figure as basically one big lump of digital clay, but one look at the lacrimals, ears, nostrils, corners of the mouth, etc tells me that this is basically a write-off and i will never even try to work on it -- id rather model something from scratch.

for years now weve been waiting for poser to be 'professionalized', to be made into more of a viable app and less the laughing stock of the entire 3D community.  what does it say about the company at the helm when models like that are given the go-ahead? it would have been better to release it with no content at all than with such hideous abortions of anatomy.

whats sad is that if the company is full of coders and they lacked the modeling talent to create base content, then after a mere glance at their competition they should have immediately realized that this doesnt even come close to cutting it and hired it out to someone up to the task. hell, im sure there are dozens of people at rosity who would have volunteered their help just for the exposure.

it frightens me that the people at the helm of our flagship software are so out of touch with their own software's market.

had SM posted some sortof preview or actually interacted with the community this could have easily been remedied. its still not too late.

btw - where are the BETA testers that didnt speak up to the devs about this?

Quote - btw - where are the BETA testers that didnt speak up to the devs about this?

I have to wonder if there was any discussion about these figures at all.

Ran into something else: the Poser 4 render engine has obviously not been upgraded to 64 bit. Tried to render a large scene and it immediately ran out of memory.

If one wants to create one's own figure would you prefer to start from a base that has clearly defined features or one that is topologically correct but bland?

To make a sweeping generalization, look at the plethora of characters based on the Millennium figures. How many are easily identified as brothers or sisters of the original and how many are distinctly a unique character in their own right?

I feel that the figures provided are ideal for the purpose for which they were intended.

Quote -
I feel that the figures provided are ideal for the purpose for which they were intended.

Agreed. These things weren't meant to be admired - they were meant to be 'filler' at a distance.

/P

I agree that some people are overreacting a bit, these figures are pretty clearly not intended to be extreme closeup beauty queens/handsomeness kings.  On the other hand, I'm not too impressed with what it says on the tin - 15,000 before adding any clothing is not exactly low poly, and if they were going for a low-detail figure for architectural visualization use they probably should have shot for something like 2,000-5,000 with clothing modeled onto the figure - I can think of some applications for a crowd of naked people, but for general-purpose arch vis use this is probably a bit heavier than a lot of people would care for, compared to other examples already on the market for this sort of thing.

http://www.complete-characters.com/cc_index.php?PHPSESSID=f037a7685106f91ddaf4991fffad7845

Quote - ...they probably should have shot for something like 2,000-5,000 with clothing modeled onto the figure ...

While I agree that they could've done better, 2.5k poly figures would get you something akin to what you would find in Unreal Tournament 2004 (those particular meshes weigh in at around that size).

5k would just barely be the low-end for something that could look passably human in a render nowadays (just IMHO). 7.5k (w/ clothing pre-built on) would be the sweet spot for long-distance shot people, and 10k good for medium (e.g. across a large foyer) distances.

/P

Well if they're supposed to be for background use only, they should still include some low poly clothing unless you're shooting a nude beach image.

Well, poser already HAS older low res figures, an dsome with clothing modeled on them, and the more I think of it, these new redistributable low poly models are good for base meshes. Look at the starter meshes that come with zbrush.. they ain't pretty either, but the point of them is they are a beginning, not an end point.

And had they modeled in a lot of detail, odds are most of it would have to be removed anyway for developement.

And blackhearted: beta testers never can touch on every single thing in developement.. I was more concerned about feature enhancements, and corrections, then in what content was included, because I never use any of the included content at all.

(Actually I take that back... I do like Jessie, and the included sanctum arts space cat was kinda nifty.)

looking at the posted renders there is just too much to 'correct' on it and without seeing an actual mesh shot i cant even tell if it would be viable.

i already spend weeks reshaping a mesh to flow better and have proper anatomy and a more appealing shape. if i have to take that even further and bog myself down with completely reshaping small things we take for granted such as inner ear geometry, lacrimals, geometry at the corner of the mouth, navel, fingers, etc then why should i even bother? at that point it would be easier to just model the thing from scratch and be able to control geometry with a low-res sub-D control cage than to suffer with moving vertice by vertice of an improperly modeled ear. 
not to mention that once you have made such radical changes in a mesh topology it generally needs to be re-UV mapped to eliminate stretching, at which point again i must ask if ive moved every vertice and UV mapped it, why am i even doing it?

body shapes, facial characteristics, etc change from person to person but basic anatomy doesnt. the bodies are definitely salvageable but the heads should be either cut off and redone or be refined at the mesh level by the creator to have more anatomically correct facial structure. 

For you and me, Blackhearted, yeah we'd do our own meshes.

For Ma n Pa kettle that are just testing the waters tinkering around with barely a clue about modelling, they are perfect for them.

Quote - if i have to take that even further and bog myself down with completely reshaping small things we take for granted such as inner ear geometry, lacrimals, geometry at the corner of the mouth, navel, fingers, etc then why should i even bother?

Err, if these particular body parts don't even take up but a pixel (maybe two) in a render, why would you want to?

/P

How much time could I have saved by using the Poser Pro figure's hands and head?

So poke fun, criticize and ridicule all you want. Me I'll just use them, save myself a lot of time and increase my income. :)

this 'background use' thing is a weak excuse.
you can make a 2K poly model that still has proper proportions and anatomy. video game developers do it all the time.

these are all just excuses. Poser is promoted as:
"the easiest way to design with the human form in 3D. Creative professionals, graphic artists and hobbyists can use the rich collection of included 3D content and powerful rendering capabilities to produce stunning art, fine illustration and breathtaking animation for any application that integrates the diversity and spirit of the human figure".

unless 'the diversity of the human figure' includes genetic mutations, these do not cut it - i am sorry.

the reason i am so upset about this is because Poser is partly judged by its content. it would have been better to include nothing at all than to include so blatantly anatomically incorrect figures. the older Poser models had their faults but they were still light years ahead of this, i dont understand why those were simply not tweaked/refined and included instead.

ive been hoping for years for a company to take over Poser that will actually bring it into this century and update it to a modern, professional, quality look and feel. what ive seen in this thread is a tremendous blow to how seriously Poser is going to be taken.

its still not too late to remedy this. basically people need to stop making excuses about how these figures are meant to be used/improved and work on making them look more human out of the box. the program just released, its not too late to issue an update.

Attached Link: AXYZ Design

Quote - For you and me, Blackhearted, yeah we'd do our own meshes.

For Ma n Pa kettle that are just testing the waters tinkering around with barely a clue about modelling, they are perfect for them.

i think you are selling ma and pa kettle short. ma and pa kettle might not know much about 3D but correct human anatomy is instantly recognizable by anyone.

again, people need to stop making excuses about these and fix them.