Call me a bonehead... but I've just read in an old post on another site that you can do shadow catching in Poser 6 and up.  Can someone explain how?  (I'm assuming that "shadow catching" means you can move shadows around independent of the objects which cast them.)  Is this correct?  Can you really do this in P7?  Thanks for the help!

 Ah. No that's not what it means. 

Shadowcatching is on default for the Ground Plane in Poser so you can easily see how it forks. Basically it's a material that renders invisible - but on which shadows are cast. and caught :)

Oh, okay -- I already knew that.  I was just a bit confused by online promotional ads for Poser 7, which state... "Shadow Catching:  Poser 7 features true to life shadow effects, making image composition and 3D figure integration easy. Using the Shadow Catcher, you can separate shadows from their underlying surface and put them virtually anywhere."

Not sure how else to interpret that... What else could it mean?  And is it just wrong?

EDIT:  I think I just answered my own question.  You could create two identical objects.  On one object, set visibility ON, but turn shadows OFF.  On the other, turn visibility OFF, but turn shadows ON.  Then, move invisible shadow-casting object to wherever you want.  Viola, shadow has moved.

Thanks for making me, you know, think about this!  LOL!

Or could it be a reference to the option to render "shadows only" and export this as a separate layer?

you know whats funny? shadow cather doesnt work with gamma correction in poser pro. which means that your shadow is not transparent enough when you render it.

but hey its poser right? it doesnt have to look right.

Hi ice-boy... I don't understand your meaning.

Surely Firefly would calculate the shadows correctly (linearly), and then Poser (Pro) would gamma correct the final render according to your render GC setting?

How then could shadowed areas in the image not be gamma corrected along with everything else?

Or do you mean if you use the "shadows only" option, the GC setting does not work? That's something I haven't tried yet.

Puzzled Izi

Quote - Or could it be a reference to the option to render "shadows only" and export this as a separate layer?

That could be it, too.  Weird advertising wording, though.  I didn't think moving a shadow was possible in Poser, simply because the shadows aren't previewed...  How would you know where to put them? 

And, I think I know the answer to this, too, but... You can obviously control which objects CAST shadows (in the preferences tab), but you can't control which objects CATCH shadows, can you? 

Quote - I'm assuming that "shadow catching" means you can move shadows around independent of the objects which cast them.)  Is this correct? 

No.

Quote - Ah. No that's not what it means. 

Shadowcatching is on default for the Ground Plane in Poser so you can easily see how it forks. Basically it's a material that renders invisible - but on which shadows are cast. and caught :)

Right.

Quote - Weird advertising wording, though.  I didn't think moving a shadow was possible in Poser,

Why are you still on that? Did you see the words "move shadows" somewhere? In your original post you said you assumed that, and TG said that's not what it means.

Shadow catching is exactly what she said. It's a feature where you can make a wall or floor or whatever be invisible, but it becomes opaque (thus darkening what you see through it) where a shadow WOULD fall if the floor was not invisible.

This is a technique for using background images. You can "see" the floor in the image behind a figure, but it's not a real floor - it's a photo of a floor with your figure suspended in front of it. In order to make your figure appear to be standing on that floor, you turn on the "shadow catching" feature of the real 3D floor you have under your figure. As you peer "through" the real floor you can see the photographed floor. Where the shadow from the figure falls on the real floor, it darkens what you see of the photographed floor.

Poser's built-in shadow catching material feature is ok, but not perfect. It does not make the shadows the same color as in the photo. It just darkens the photo. To get real color matching, you have to do more tricks.

I have a free shadow-catching material that does allow you to perfectly match the color of the shadows that are already in the photo with the ones generated by your 3D rendering of the figure and its shadow in front of the photo.

http://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/free-stuff/shadow-catcher

My shadow catcher works in Poser 5, too so you don't have to have Poser 6 or better to get this effect.

Here's a thumbnail from one of my images that demonstrates the effect.

The tiled floor you see is a photo. The shadows of the railing in the photo are real shadows. The shadows of the figure are 3D rendered shadows superimposed on the photo. We can still see the tile even in the 3D shadow, but it's darker and slightly bluer. The reason outdoor shadows are blue is because the sun is not hitting there, but light from the sky is. So outdoor shadows look fake if they don't have the right amount of blue in them. When I did that render, I was just learning Poser and hadn't really figured out the perfect way to match the shadows, so it was trial and error.

Now you can use my shadow catcher and measure the shadow color - thus it calculates the right factors to use automatically.

If you want to see the full size renders, here are the links (warning - nudity)
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1168926
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1168275

Here's another example, from the thread that started it all.

Robo2010 was trying to put a tank into a photo of a gas station.

Using the shadow catching feature, it produced a shadow. (Look behind the tank)  But the rendered shadow was black. The real shadows are blue, and the two don't look enough the same to be believable.

I took his photo and (not having a tank) I used a sphere to demonstrate how it is possible to make the rendered shadow match.

I then published the first version of my shadow catcher.

Since then, I made a better one, and that is what is on my website.

If you want to read the original thread, here it is:

Shadow Color? (October 2007)

Quote - > Quote - I'm assuming that "shadow catching" means you can move shadows around independent of the objects which cast them.)  Is this correct? 

No.

Quote - Ah. No that's not what it means. 

Shadowcatching is on default for the Ground Plane in Poser so you can easily see how it forks. Basically it's a material that renders invisible - but on which shadows are cast. and caught :)

Right.

Quote - Weird advertising wording, though.  I didn't think moving a shadow was possible in Poser,

Why are you still on that? Did you see the words "move shadows" somewhere? In your original post you said you assumed that, and TG said that's not what it means.

sigh  You are such an engineer.  Please re-read your post and pay attention to your your tone.  You have managed to come off as utterly condescending and... well... somewhat rude.  Your information is, indeed, accurate, but you've conveyed it in a way that nobody in their right mind wants to read, because it makes them feel like an idiot.

The "move shadows" thought I had was not related to the original question, except that the promotional ad made me infer that such a feat was possible. ("Using the Shadow Catcher, you can separate shadows from their underlying surface and put them virtually anywhere.")  I understand... shadow catching refers to adding shadows to a transparent surface and then "putting them virtually anywhere" via a background image.  But  I was simply wondering if my initial idea (from a mis-interpreted ad) was possible.

If you read my little brainstorm, my idea is possible.  It's not "shadow-catching."  I get that.  But it would be an interesting technique.  I appreciate being told what the actual definition of shadow catching is.  I understood that after the second post.  But my question was more of a reference of what I wanted to do, not what the formal definition of "shadow catching" is.

It's worth noting that I'm a physics teacher and web designer with a master's degree in molecular biology and experience in javascript and php scripting.  I'm NOT a moron.  And yet, in the first two sentences of your post, you managed to make me wonder if I was.  I am continually saddened by the tone that some people take when being "helpful" on these threads.  As a teacher, I feel  compelled to point out that simply spouting correct information is not enough to instruct other people.  Trying to put yourself into the shoes of the learner might be nice. 

And, incidentally, if someone does get something wrong the first time, or if they choose to do something in a less-than-efficient or round-about way... should they be flogged? Publically humiliated?  Drawn and quartered?    Trust me, there are MUCH dumber questions to be found in the universe.  For example, on a test that asked "Why doesn't the Leaning Tower of Pisa fall over?" I had a student respond today with, "Air resistance." 

Perhaps that's why I have more patience for "dumb" questions and round-about thinking styles.

I really do appreciate the tutorial, but your instructional strategies leave something to be desired.  You might want to work on this a tad, lest you offend people without need.

By the way, Bagginsbill, I know you are a very experienced user of Poser and other 3d techniques.  (I read these threads a lot, though I'm somewhat timid about posting questions -- primarily because I dislike the drama that often accompanies it.)  Please note, I'm not trying to offend you, either.  I just thought you might like to know that your abrupt manner and tone at the start of your post almost made me disregard everything you had to say afterward.  I assume you're posting to share your extensive understanding of a complex topic.  I just want to point out that you'd be more effective at this if you were a bit less abrasive. 

I may not be an expert in 3-D software.  But I think I qualify as an expert in instruction.  wink

And, just to clarify, the "post that started it all" for ME was this one.  I'm relatively new to 3-d art, which is why I don't know the formal terms for everything.  And once I got past the fact that I felt like you were insulting my intelligence, I re-read your post and found valuable information within it.  I appreciate the reference to the other post, though that's not the technique I'm very interested in.  (I rarely, if ever, layer my renders onto background images in photoshop.  I  prefer to work within Poser and don't do much postwork to speak of.)  But, in case I do ever need this information, it's been filed away for future reference.  

Thank you for the help.  I hope you accept my constructive criticism in the vein it was intended -- as a place where improvement is possible. 

Edited because I'm apparently not an expert in typing, either.

Sure no problem. Sorry sorry.

I do that all the time. You got me - engineer. :)

I'll try to do better.

In my defense ...

"Call me a bonehead"

(edit: laughing with you, I hope) Cheers

Quote - In my defense ...

"Call me a bonehead"

(edit: laughing with you, I hope) Cheers

LOL...  Okay, yeah.. I did ask for it.  

Fair enough!

Thanks again for the info.

Hmm. I just read this again.

Quote - that's not the technique I'm very interested in.  (I rarely, if ever, layer my renders onto background images in photoshop.  I  prefer to work within Poser and don't do much postwork to speak of.) 

Perhaps I've mislead you somewhere. The use of the shadow catcher is specifically NOT for postwork. It is specifically for generating the final image within Poser - no postwork is involved. All of the renders you see compositing a 3D figure or prop and its shadows onto a photo was done entirely in the Poser render.

I NEVER do postwork. It violates my sensiblities - I have a fondness for generating the correct image immediately.

You didn't mislead me... I was just (once again) in bonehead mode and apparently couldn't articulate a complete thought.  It's true that I rarely use postwork, but what I think I was trying to express (before my brain fell out of my head) is that I rarely use background images period.  I prefer prop backgrounds to background pictures as a rule, mainly because I like rendering with DOF. 

I think maybe I should stop talking before I really make myself look stupid, LOL...

1) You can point the camera anywhere and you see the world.

1. Shiny things reflect that world.

Here is a render I did today. The 3D subject is the airplane. What you see behind it is a photo, but not composited in post. That would be nearly impossible, since the photo is a 360 degree panorama of the world around us.

How would you build that world without the photo?

Oh, did you say depth of field. :-)

Quote -
Here is a render I did today. The 3D subject is the airplane. What you see behind it is a photo, but not composited in post. That would be nearly impossible, since the photo is a 360 degree panorama of the world around us.

How would you build that world without the photo?

Vue  ;D

just kidding.