I use it a lot (Hey, I like it. :)) but I know if I push the camera out too far I get fuzzy skies.
Now, what I've been doing is have the camera (usually) around 55mm focal (sometimes more, depending on what I render), and enlarge the sphere to push it further back so I don't get pixellated skies.
Reason for this is, if I pull the camera in to about 15mm (which would be great for the sky), it distorts the face of the figure I'm rendering.

I've tried to mess around with the perspective/focal, but they always go to the same value.
(What is the point of that, exactly?)
Focus distance.... haven't had much luck with that either. (I really need to play more with it, and fStops too.)

Now the question is, is there a way to render without a distorted figure, but a great sky, without resorting to what I'm doing atm -- or is that the right way to go about it? (Enlarging the sphere to push it back)

If you're not completely fed up with explaining things... I'd love to see a tutorial on camera settings, with or without the env sphere. :)

Sure.

This is actually similar to choosing the right focal length for a real camera. The funny thing is that in real life, "real photographers" do not want a busy background, so if they are doing a portrait, they have zero interest in getting clouds in there. The portraits that are most admired at, for example, sites like dpreview.com, are those in which the background is completely obliterated.

Be that as it may, let's accept that what you're trying to do is desirable, despite the opinions of portrait photographers.

If you use, say 35 mm, you might find a decent compromise. You can get some more sky in, and of course you'll have to move the camera a little closer to the figure's face, but not so close that perspective of nose versus ears will be completely out of whack.

By the way, wide angle lenses do not "cause" this distortion. It is a simple consequence of being close to a face. It is controlled by where you stand, not the width of the picture. No matter the field of view, facial feature perspective distortion is 100% because of how close your camera is to the face.

As you change to a wider focal length, you are forced to get closer to the face to keep it filling the frame the same amount. Do this too much, and you get a pretty ugly face, both in real life and in a render.

Have a look here to see a terrific demo of this.

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Now this distortion is not nearly so great if you're ok with not filling the frame with the face.

If you're doing a composition where, say, about 3 heads would fit in frame instead of just one, then you will see much less distortion, and you can open the camera up wider, to perhaps 25 mm, without any problem.

If you're not doing a head shot, but full upper body, then you really can go down to 20 mm.

I'll post more, but I have to get ready for my birthday party. I'm turning 50 on Tuesday, but we're celebrating today.

I forgot to mention that making the sphere bigger really doesn't make it bigger, if you know what I mean. And therefore making it smaller doesn't really do that either.

Moving the sphere can bring more into view, but it is distorted. But I guess distorted clouds are OK.

When I really want to control the background, I don't use the sphere for the background. I use the sphere for lighting and reflections, sure. But for behind a figure's head, I put a square with whatever I want exactly mounted on that square. Doesn't have to match the sphere, because the camera will not directly see both.

Ohh Happy Birthday for Tuesday :)

That is a great comparison on the site you posted. Thanks for that.

Yeah, I'm not planning to fill the frame with the face. The one where I get problems tends to be a full body shot.
But then if I go in to 15mm, that's way too close and I get distortion.
I like a bit of a busy sky, since I want the clouds, but not overkill. :)
And hey... if I render stormclouds, then I want masses of clouds visible.

Trying to find a happy medium can get a little tedious at times.

Here is a real photo I took on my Nikon at 18mm (on DX, which works similar to Poser field of view). I needed wide because in a sailboat cockpit, you cannot back up. (I'm so tired of photographers on forums saying "zoom with your feet". That is stupid. If I zoomed with my feet here I'd be in the cabin.)

I don't see any real distortion.

Nice pic :)
And yeah, if I always "Zoomed with my feet", I'd have been splattered at the foot of the Empire State Building, for one thing lol.
I fly real well, but the landings... the landings are a bit... deadly. :)
Hmmmm
Yeah, I used the one sided square to do that as well before, but I thought it was because I just couldn't get the sphere to show up right and needed to cheat with the background. :P
Well, duh. :)

Hmmm. Not sure where to put this bookmark!  Material Room or Cameras?  

Guess I'll put it in both places just to be sure.

Great information here! :)

'togs say that because it is the best way of adjusting the POV without adding extra distortion or other weirdness. 
It's not the only way tho' and neither is it always the best.

Happy b'dy for Tuesday too BB, the magic half century :)

Quote - 'togs say that because it is the best way of adjusting the POV without adding extra distortion or other weirdness. 
It's not the only way tho' and neither is it always the best.

Happy b'dy for Tuesday too BB, the magic half century :)

Thanks.

Actually, moving the camera is in fact the only way to change POV, i.e. point of view, with or without distortion. At least in real life.

In Poser I can do it with mirrors and lenses.

Sometimes it's tricky, especially inside a room.
The camera can only go back so far, before a wall is blocking the view.
Then I get in trouble.
If I can remove the wall, cool. Most times I can't because I need it for some bouncey lightey IDL stuff.

Right, but that is why I explained in another thread how to use a one-sided square as a lens that provides the POV of being outside a room, while shooting with a camera from inside the room.

The reason this works but not in real life is because the lens has to be nearly the size of the room.

This one?
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3561758&ebot_calc_page#message_3561758

Yes.

You're using the double gradient on the EnvDome, not the EnvSphere. It is doing exactly what it I expect it to do, although it isn't what I expected anybody would want to do. The double gradient is black to dark gray, then light gray to blue. It is for use on a full sphere or the hemisphere.

The dome is a different UV mapping from the sphere and hemisphere. The sphere and hemisphere define the ground level to be V = .5. The dome defines the ground level to be V=0.

You're using a shader that produces black at V=0 with a prop that puts V=0 at ground level - i.e. the horizon.

What are you trying to do?

Observe the difference.

The middle one is the EnvDome you're using.

PPro 2010 users - attention:

The gamma in and out really matters with IDL. Furthermore, you have PPro which can do render GC. If you're using render GC, turn off the shader GC in and out (set to 1) for the image-based shaders I supplied with the EnvSphere.

You want to let Poser handle the gamma correction when it can. (Can't do this with P8 or P7 or P6 or P5 - only PPro and PPro 2010)

Quote - What are you trying to do?

Im trying to get light on the figure from the Sphere :-) What's the secret? Read through the instruction again but my figure is black after rendering.
Loaded the EnvSphere and the EnvDoubleGradient mat file.
What else do I need to do?

Enable IDL.

Important note! Thanks