Quote - ...Or you could apply it using BB's Artistic Lens, which is a one-sided square primitive with a few nodes applied.. He starts discussing using it for GC towards the bottom of this page...

www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php

What, a simple solution! I'll have to check it out. Thank you.

Quote - That's the whole GC deal... no nutshell required. There is a choice which rests with each of us according to our own craft or art.

Thank you. This is an eminently reasonable answer.

Quote - There is a lot of talk about realism without defining what is realistic and what is not, and the definition is meaningfull and affects real world behaviour

...

I think there is far too much focus the technicalities of realism to little proven end. I render very little because rendering removes the vitality of pictures. It softens and blurs and produce so little worth looking at

I totally agree. When discussing realism, I think that most of the time a sort of photorealism is what's aimed for. I see nothing wrong with that except that I've seen only one or two pieces of CG art with humans in them that actually look real enough to be mistaken for photos.

With the exception of a few highly postworked close up portraits, the works with the best shaders and lighting that I see in the galleries here manage to produce with a startling realism images of people who look like they were taken directly out of Madame Tussaud's wax works.

Poser bodies aren't even close to being good enough to fool the eye. So I do wonder at times why one would bother aiming for photorealism in an image containing a poser human.

I guess the images are still valuable art, in the way that a photo of a statue can be valuable art. And I do like to look at them. I just would never bother to try to reproduce the effect myself.

Quote -
I am Frankly having a hard time seeing where this new rule of Gamma correction is creating better renders overall than THIS four year old poser 6 render

Exactly what I was thinking. Suddenly Poser Pro 2010 has GC and none of the art that was rendered before is valid? Clearly that's not the case. But I wanted to know why and where the obsession with this new feature came from.

Ironically, especially in the digital age, reality is hard to find. Most images we see have been 'shopped, tweaked or enhanced in some way.

IMO, the only thing that counts is the emotional impact an image has on the viewer. If there's only one road to salvation, that sounds more like religion than art to me, but then I'm neither artist nor acolyte.

*"As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth." - Paul Krugman *

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Quote - Good point I see alot of technical terminology and settings listed
and semi-naked figures in an empty universe.
that Look Different from each other
but none particularly realistic or impressive IMHO
I am Frankly having a hard time seeing where this new rule of Gamma correction is creating better renders overall than THIS four year old poser 6 render

but that just me.

Cheers

No, it isn't just you. Most of us never even thought of or considered using CG until some 'well respected' persons started telling that you need CG and that your images are no good without it. As with almost everything in the poserverse everyone jumps on the bandwagon and follows the hype.

Personally I cannot say that the quality of the images have improved since we're all using CG, far from it. Personally, I compared my images and noticed that CG in the end isn't really improving them at all, there's a lot more to improvement and relying on CG will not do it at all. We can create stunning images with CG and without CG, but the better images shown are still the ones without CG. They've got lively colors, vivid colors, great mood and so on, something that CG tends to kill.

Quote - Exactly what I was thinking. Suddenly Poser Pro 2010 has GC and none of the art that was rendered before is valid? Clearly that's not the case. But I wanted to know why and where the obsession with this new feature came from.

It was there before PP2010, Poser 7 Pro has it also. It was advocated by a few people when Poser 7 Pro came out telling us images really look crap when you don't use CG. Funny thing is that the people who told us that and are very actively pushing CG are 'affiliated' to Smith Micro in one way or another.

I've noticed lately that a lot of Poser users believe that using certain features and extra's and at times gimmicks will improve you work a lot. It just doesn't look good without it. You cannot live without certain add-ons, even this thread mentions a number of them. Funny thing is that the best images are those who do not use all of this stuff.

If you cannot make a good image without relying on the extra's no one can supposedly live without, you cannot make a good image with them either. But.... it's easier to use the extra's, instead of learning to use Poser well.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

oh I have to disagree there. I think prior to GC or at least that other HSV tone lighty thing, that people put tons of lights in their scenes because the scenes were so dark, but all that did was make the lit parts almost white and the shadowed parts were too shadowed.
I think it's definitely an improvement having the latest poser versions. But even so there are some scenes where GC seems to destroy the richness of the colours, and make the skin grey green. In my example I still used an advanced poser feature which was tone mapping HSV exponential at 2.2
It did need that I feel but GC killed the image so i partially agree with you I suppose I am saying.
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

Quote - oh I have to disagree there. I think prior to GC or at least that other HSV tone lighty thing, that people put tons of lights in their scenes because the scenes were so dark, but all that did was make the lit parts almost white and the shadowed parts were too shadowed.
I think it's definitely an improvement having the latest poser versions. But even so there are some scenes where GC seems to destroy the richness of the colours, and make the skin grey green. In my example I still used an advanced poser feature which was tone mapping HSV exponential at 2.2
It did need that I feel but GC killed the image so i partially agree with you I suppose I am saying.
Love esther

That's exactly my point :-) I you know how to use IBL well (for example) you do not need tons of light at all. CG is an easy solution for too dark images, but that's not what CG is for at all, since it has a number of side effects as you mention also. People who really had lights in Poser 6 down well are still benefiting from that knowledge a lot, far more that someone who never really learned how to do lights in Poser 6 and onwards and using CG and such to compensate.

I do agree though that tone mapping is an excellent addition, far more useful then CG is and it's available to non Poser Pro users. Tone Mapping also helps a lot with too dark images, but doesn't have the nasty side effects that CG can produce. Tone Mapping brings out the colors, while CG tends to flatten them. I do use Cg on certain occasions, but tone mapping has been much more useful to me.

I'm not against use CG, I'm against overly using it and looking at it as some kind of miracle or an absolute must as some try to make us believe. It's none of that, it's useful in certain scenes and very unuseful in others. On the other hand, most of my scenes do benefit from tone mapping in one way or anothers, but not all of them. Each scene is different, but learning how to use lights and light setting is benicifial for all scenes, far more then trying to compensate with CG and such.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

I am sure I never got the hang of lights in earlier versions of poser (I probably still haven't). No matter how many lights I used I couldn't get my scenes light and bright without having oversaturated portions. IBL didn't ever fix it for me. I also noticed many other people in the galleries had the same problem. Most images were way too dark.
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

You not thinking of or considering GC doesn't invalidate GC, aeilkema. It merely means you never considered or thought to try something other than cranking up the lights when your materials appeared to render dark.
Someone comes out with a suggestion (GC your materials), I try it. I publish my tests. Then, if multiple runs of those tests prove conclusive, I change my practice. When something even better comes out (corrected-sRGB) I try it. I run tests. etc etc

Now, I'm going to have a go at Esther's suggestion. Or do you consider that a bad idea too?

BTW, what have your tests shown?

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Hi Robyn,
sounds like a good way to do things (familiar too)
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

The scientific method - I do listen to my anaesthetists when they give handover, and when they explain their rationales, I absorb it - I love in-depth explanations. And we have been known to change practice in how we recover patients accordingly.
We used to pre-medicate (routinely!) any patient about to receive Tramadol IV via pain protocol (as an adjunct to some narcotic pain protocol) Metaclopramide 10 - 20mg, until listening to a relatively exhaustive explanation by one of our more clued-up registrars about the slight but significant chance of Seratonin syndrome using those two together changed our approach. That registrar felt that it was best to wait to see how the patient tolerated the Tramadol and give one of the -trons instead of Maxalon if the patient needed it.

Sage advice.

It boils down to best practice.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - You not thinking of or considering GC doesn't invalidate GC, aeilkema.p the lights when your materials appeared to render dark.
.....................
BTW, what have your tests shown?

Hi Not trying to be contentious as I dont even use poser for rendering,
but I dont see where aeilkema is required to have performed some GC "tests" to have an opinion about what His/her own eyes see posted by others today and in the past.

if GC is actually improving your images that's great for you
but I have noticed a trend here where people post Wip's etc for comments and
Immediately being interrogated about GC&VSS.
and even admonished for not having used it.
it has become almost like a new religion here.

someone recently posted one of those
"Guess which figure" renders and instead of the usual "Alan Alda" , the first respondent Demanded to know is VSS was used on the skin.

My website

YouTube Channel

GC is a constraint filter which controls the maximum saturation differential allowed in a render. It can have the effect of rendering a sharply lit scene more bland. It can also bring out details which were too dark to perceive in the uncorrected render. If one is going for a daylight look, GC will probably help. If one is attempting a darkish, noir effect, then it will more likely detract from the desired atmosphere.

Personally, I never use it. Despite the fact that I "have to".

Klebnor

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device. Beige horizontal case. I don't display my unit.

Going back a few posts...

Discussing GC and realism together is just confusing two different subjects. Explicit use of GC is not a necessary ingredient of realistic renders, nor is realism a guaranteed result of using GC.

We have clear evidence in this thread that we can get an ugly render (with aeilkema's so-called GC 'side effects') by adding GC to a scene where the materials and lighting are already giving reasonable results without GC.

That's pretty obvious, isn't it? But don't make the mistake of blaming GC. The problem is that the material shaders and/or the lighting don't obey real-world physics. In this case, there is a clear choice open to everyone - either don't use GC with these materials and lighting, or use GC with correctly-modeled materials and lighting.

ghonma's post hits the nail right on the head - if your render looks correct on your screen, it needs no explicit GC. But using GC does simplify the process of attempting to represent real-world objects and materials in real-world lighting conditions, by giving us two things:-

Material shaders operating in linear colour space, like the real world;
Final renders adjusted for (approx) sRGB colour space, like your computer display.

GC is not 'compensation' for anything. It is just accurate modeling of the real world.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

"And we have been known to change practice in how we recover patients accordingly."
Robyn, you mean to say you no longer recover them in the starfish position and have switched to the coma position. (I'll believe that when I see it)

Yes, I have definitely noticed my renders don't look as sharp with GC, and also the colours don't look as rich.
But it does make the render look brighter which is nice.

Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

Have you considered corrected-sRGB, Esther? Darker colours and low lighting renders beautifully.

As far as believing what my eyes tell me, Wolf... things that look good on my monitor (reasonably new 5000:1 contrast ratio Flatron Wide LG) may look like poo on my business partner's monitor. That's comparing an image or colour or shader effect on two different monitors: one in Australia and one in Denmark. I look at the same image or effect on my laptop, and it looks different again.

So, to me, seeing isn't adequate evidence that something is right. I could show you images that look brilliant to me, but you'd find them flat and lifeless, or over-the-top saturated. I simply can't use that as a reliable measure anymore.

When I go into my galleries and see blown-out skin detail (yellow bloom) because of excessive lighting to compensate for incorrect colour processing, I now know it for what it is. I didn't, before. And I know how to avoid it. It's not about throwing more, less intense lights into the scene, which increases render time to over-nighters. I get quicker, better results with less lights.

I can't afford Poser Pro 2010, and even if someone gave me $250 for the sidegrade, I don't know that I would pay that kind of money for software GC (the only feature that even vaguely interests me), especially when new ideas are coming out about managing material renders.

It's not about bandwagons: it's about trying new things.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

the other good thing about poser pro 2010 that you would probably find useful is the render to queue. then you can leave a whole lot of renders going whilst you are at work etc.
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

Quote - You not thinking of or considering GC doesn't invalidate GC, aeilkema. It merely means you never considered or thought to try something other than cranking up the lights when your materials appeared to render dark. Someone comes out with a suggestion (GC your materials), I try it. I publish my tests. Then, if multiple runs of those tests prove conclusive, I change my practice. When something even better comes out (corrected-sRGB) I try it. I run tests. etc etc

Now, I'm going to have a go at Esther's suggestion. Or do you consider that a bad idea too?

BTW, what have your tests shown?

This is so typical....... reading half a post and then making an assumption. I you would have read my post you would have known better. I've tested CG a lot and if you would have read my conclusion I stated it isn't a one stop miracle solution. Both Poser Pro versions have CG, I've years of experience with CG already, not a new kid on the block when it comes to that.

Btw.... you know what's most funny about your post...... CG your materials, now that's what Tone Mapping is for! From all my tests I've found that TM does a much better job on that, since it has been made for that purpose. If your materials tend to render dark, TM will do a great job fixing that problem, without affecting the rest of the scene. If your whole scene tends to be too dark then CG comes in handy.

I do run tests, of course I do, I wouldn't even participate if I didn't use the feature at all. All I saying is stop over using the feature, a lot of images are wasted by it, there's a lot more to a good scene then CG only.

Besides, running tests is never conclusive, you cannot use the same approach on every scene, different scenes need different approaches to get the best out of them.

While you suggest I'm set in my ways, sounds like you're the one that's really set in your ways once your test are conclusive.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

"While you suggest I'm set in my ways, sounds like you're the one that's really set in your ways once your test are conclusive."
Um no:
"Someone comes out with a suggestion (GC your materials), I try it. I publish my tests. Then, if multiple runs of those tests prove conclusive, I change my practice. When something even better comes out (corrected-sRGB) I try it. I run tests. etc etc

Now, I'm going to have a go at Esther's suggestion."

Seems like I'm not the only one reading only half the post.

BTW, you mention tone-mapping: how is that done in Poser 7? Or is that an option in Poser 7?

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

One of these renders was made using 5 infinite lights.

The other was made using everything what PoserPro 2010 could throw at it. (IDL, tone mapping, etc)

I guess my "Standard Poser lighting skills" must be exceptional then, because, even though I really tried, I can't really see any advantage in those new "features".

The real problem is that GC and multi shader skin nodes would only work properly if we all use standardised textures for everything as well as identical monitors.
(And have all the same color perception)

The caucasian skin textures I use look perfect if viewed outside of Poser on my CRT monitor.
(Which displays 99% of all the photographs I find on the web correctly. Unlike my overly bright LCD)

If I crank up gamma, they look bleached out.

Now the lights I use in Poser neither add nor substract from the skins' original "lightness".

So why would I want Poser to artificially "correct" a texture that already looks perfect ?
Either by shaders or global GC ?

Yes, of course, if you just use those default deep orange caucasian skin textures most people sell (Including DAZ), they will look like cr*p unless you seriously crank up Poser lights or add a gazillion of shader nodes to "compensate".
(Or use an LCD monitor with too much gamma)

Same for any other textured item you use in your scene.

So the first step is to look at all those textures OUTSIDE of Poser and, if necessary, correct them until they look right on your monitor.

Once you've done that, working "inside" Poser will be a lot easier.

I believe tone mapping came in PP and P8.

As I understand tone mapping, you would still have a linear response in the new colour space; or am I missing something?

EDIT

JP,
I like the top one a bit better, as the bottom one lacks a lamp post shadow and has some artifacts on the steps.

BTW, I wish there was a really good VW model available-I tried the one from DAZ and didn't like it-it needs more polys in the fenders...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Quote -
As far as believing what my eyes tell me, Wolf... things that look good on my monitor (reasonably new 5000:1 contrast ratio Flatron Wide LG) may look like poo on my business partner's monitor. That's comparing an image or colour or shader effect on two different monitors: one in Australia and one in Denmark. I look at the same image or effect on my laptop, and it looks different again.

Hi which only Demonstrates Why some arbitrary CG formula is Not some holy grail of poser rendering

also see "Joe pubilc's very informative post .
Gamma correction in poser renders is sort of like a color managed workflow in the print business
except the "final output will be viewed on various monitors.
Not on a standard 4 color press using certain standard inks with a certain paper stock that has a certain "white point" that will give you predictable color results for everyone that holds the finished print in his/her hand.
again im not trying to discourage the use of GC

I dont care I render in Vray for C4Dand sometime C4D's own AR3

Im just commenting on the perceived notionby some that it is now the only way to get a "numerically Correct" poser render today.

My website

YouTube Channel

In a nutshell, gamma correction is about having contrast in an image. That's not everything to know about gamma correction, but it's essentially the desired result. There should be a deep black in an image and a bright white in an image (if the image has a black and a white). A typical Poser render tends to not have either and the end result is a murky look to an image that lacks the kind of crispness that it should have.

It's something that can either be corrected in Poser to a degree or through a photoediting program. My preference is the latter because there are more controls that allow the correction to be made in real time and allows a great deal more experimentation. Doing it in Poser is a global render. If that doesn't look right, something has to be tweaked and rendered again in a non-real time process.

My visual indexes of Poser content are at http://www.sharecg.com/pf/rgagnon

Attached Link: http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch24.html

Always obey the #1 rule of computer graphics: whatever looks right, is right. Whatever helps you getting good looking images, use it.

Math however, is not a matter of opinion. Rendering is all math, and the mathematical necessity of gamma correction in rendering has been explained in many places (I linked one of them).

Whether to exercise the artistic freedom of breaking the rules or not, that's up to everyone's own opinion. My favorite paintings are far from physically correct and that's what I like about them.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to get perfect photorealism, then doing the same things a photo camera does is essential. And every single digital camera on the market is converting linear luminance data to an sRGB or AdobeRGB color space in a process commonly called gamma correction.

Interesting. Are we trying to emulate the camera lens, or human vision? Would they be the same?

Quote - if GC is actually improving your images that's great for you
but I have noticed a trend here where people post Wip's etc for comments and
Immediately being interrogated about GC&VSS.
and even admonished for not having used it.
it has become almost like a new religion here.

someone recently posted one of those
"Guess which figure" renders and instead of the usual "Alan Alda" , the first respondent Demanded to know is VSS was used on the skin.

This is the sort of thing I noticed, which is why I wondered what it was all about. I wondered whether I was doing everything wrong and had been doing everything wrong by, first of all, using a piece of clearly inferior software that lacked the Most Important Feature Ever, and second of all by not compensating by using excessively complicated material nodes.

Quote - If, on the other hand, you're trying to get perfect photorealism, then doing the same things a photo camera does is essential. And every single digital camera on the market is converting linear luminance data to an sRGB or AdobeRGB color space in a process commonly called gamma correction.

This may be true, and it's a decent point, but if you're aiming for perfect photorealism, and you do say "perfect," I still can't help wondering why you're using Poser?

I liked the look of the bottom image best

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

Quote - If, on the other hand, you're trying to get perfect photorealism, then doing the same things a photo camera does is essential. And every single digital camera on the market is converting linear luminance data to an sRGB or AdobeRGB color space in a process commonly called gamma correction.

If it's automatically being done on cameras, which aren't software intensive, I wonder why it's not a given in Poser. It's less likely to get used in Poser if people have to learn about it and put in extra effort to get it.

My visual indexes of Poser content are at http://www.sharecg.com/pf/rgagnon

Not all of us are trying for photorealism anyway. I'm into making comic toons.
But the gamma in poser may work differently. As I mentioned earlier, it seems to take some of the richness of the colours away and also "seems" to me to make my images less sharp. It could be my imagination though.
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

> Quote - Interesting. Are we trying to emulate the camera lens, or human vision? Would they be the same?

You cant Emulate human vision... its impossible.

Actually so called
photorealistic 3Drenderers are just Emulation what the scene would look like if a professional photographer took a picture and handed it to you
if you use a truly "highend"
render engine that used a "physicaly correct" workflow you can recognize this right away in your settings ( see pic)
but these of course are way more $$Expensive$$$ than poser

My website

YouTube Channel

Quote - One of these renders was made using 5 infinite lights.

The other was made using everything what PoserPro 2010 could throw at it. (IDL, tone mapping, etc)

I guess my "Standard Poser lighting skills" must be exceptional then, because, even though I really tried, I can't really see any advantage in those new "features".

And that proves...pretty much nothing actually, other than that by using 5 infinite lights and unmentioned setting on the render, one can get something that looks approximately the same as another render again using unmentioned settings with other stuff.

Most of this discussion has been at cross purposes almost from the start.
On the one hand, trying to explain, in response to the OP, the simple, plain fact of what GC is.
On the other hand, presenting good and bad renders as reasons to either use it or not use it.

GC does nothing more or less than enable us to use physics-based maths in our shaders. No GC means that shader lighting calculations are not based on physical reality. But that simple fact in no way implies any pressure on anyone to use it. There are other ways to compensate for these inaccuracies.

The fact remains, though, that many ugly Poser renders are ugly simply because the contrast and/or levels are all wrong. It is in such circumstances that those people who recognise the symptoms are likely to recommend GC as an appropriate way to improve things.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

On the subject of realism:

what you would actually see can not be accurately captured by a camera, recreated in Poser (or anything else) or made in any other way.

So we're left with what we'd expect to see. 'Photorealism' is what we'd expect to see if a scene was captured by a camera - but what kind? Digital? Film? What sort of sensor? What sort of film?

Have you ever watched some of that colour footage of World War II, and thought it looked a bit weird? That's because you expected to see it in black and white. If you were creating a scene set in the 1960s, you'd probably light it to emulate what you'd have seen in magazines and TV shows / commercials of the time. You might well do some post-processing to emulate the shortcomings of the colour film, TV or colour printing technologies of the time, to make it seem 'genuine' (i.e. to meet the viewer's expectations).

If anyone wants to delve into this in more depth, a recommended read is Umberto Eco's Travels in Hyper-reality.

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017

Some very reasonable comments. I think some confusion has arisen from the fact that some of the comments advocating the use of GC have, as others have stated, come across rather as absolutes - with the implication that if you're not using it, you images are clearly, inevitably, metaphysically doomed to inferiority. I don't think anyone is pushing a hidden SM agenda, whatever their affiliations, but rather expressing their honest opinions. It's certainly refreshing to read some discussion of the pros and cons and when GC may or may not be the most appropriate technique. So, while the ecumenical spirit lasts:

In Vue, Kerkythea and some orher renderers, GC is implemented as a post-render effect. Is there an advantage to GC in the render process as opposed to post-render?
I rendered a scene in program x specifically designed to show the value of GC. I did two renders, one with and one without GC. Applying GC 2.2 to the non-GC image in an image editor, I can see no difference between it and the render GC version. Am I missing something or is there no difference?
I often render in Vue using HDRI lighting. Does the use HDRI effect the need for GC in any way or is it still a case by case issue?
There still seems to be some suggestion that at least for certain scenes, GC is a must, or at least greatly preferred. What non-GC techniques can be used to mitigate for its absence?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Read the chapter Stewer posted above. It will clarify some of your questions.

In many cases GC seems to be the tail wagging the dog... users have been told they should use it, but they don't understand why.

Sounds like there's a requirement for non-technical guide to GC. OK, a very lightly technical guide. It'll take me a while but I'll put something together over the next few days.

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017

Quote - I Dont render in poser so I never Gamma correct
But it seems like this GC/VSS combo is mainly for Figure portriats
showing alot of skin.
is it relevent to poser users who Do Sci fi with Mechs/machines etc?

Yes it is. It probably even works better, since generally non-skin shaders are not as complex, and don't have kludges built in to fake some of the effects of GC.

Quote - Interesting. Are we trying to emulate the camera lens, or human vision? Would they be the same?

No. For one thing, cameras usually have depth-of-field effects, and human vision tends not to. If I take a photo of a person standing in front of a tall building in the distance, the person will be in focus and the building won't be. Because the human eye can move about in a scene, and re-focus, if I am looking at the person he will be in focus, and if my attention shifts to the building it will be in focus.

"I'll put something together over the next few days."

Looking forward to it. Personally, I would like something in between Maxwell's equations and 'just use it.' I've started reading Birn's Digital Lighting and Rendering, and I like his practical approach, though strangely, he doesn't seem to say a lot about gamma correction per se other than using the histogram for adjustments. Maybe he didn't get the memo.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

just a few things that people seem to be misled about:

as far as i can tell, using Vray does not automatically make gamma correction unnecessary. i've seen tons of yellow bloom and overly dark shadows in too bright ambient light renders posted by people saying they use Vray.

Tone Mapping does not do Gamma Correction. it doesn't replace it. it just does something else entirely. you might like what it does, and you can get good results with it, but it's not GC.

CG is computer graphics, which we're all working with. gamma correction is abbreviated as GC.

gamma correction is a very, very simple concept with lots of implications. your textures are in sRGB space. the colors you see on your screen are in sRGB space. this includes the colors in your final render and the colors in your color picker. your renderer makes linear mathematical calculations. not just Poser's renderer, every renderer. like 1 + 2 = 3.

gamma correction or linear workflow means translating the sRGB input into a linear form so that the linear calculations have input that makes sense, then translating the final calculation to sRGB so that the output makes sense to your digital display.

regular workflow means you're feeding the renderer what to it is gibberish, then producing something that's gibberish to the screen. even if you do decide to correct in photoshop, you already have gibberish from your sRGB input processed linearly. and unless you've been very careful about lighting, which most aren't, you've already lost information to blow out and shadows that are too dark.

if you notice, in a graphics app that doesn't apply its own correction as Photoshop can, if you take something at 50% opacity and overlay it with a duplicate of itself, you won't get the color at 100% opacity. in non-linear space 1 + 2 does not equal 3. treating it as if it does is not "unrealistic." it's simply incorrect.

can you tweak your lights and materials to make it not look like gibberish? yes, and lots of people do. what you're basically doing then is translating between linear and sRGB space by hand and eyeballing it. it's more work to do consistently than just using the correct math to translate, but people have done it for years. once you've learned to make the gibberish look like you want, is it more work to change? yes, but again, the issue is consistency.

i've seen lots of people who do one type of lighting without GC fairly well. i've seen very few people do lots of different types of lighting well without GC, and again, that includes people who use Vray. flipping it around, which is where it really counts, i have textures with shaders that compensate for not having GC, but they don't work well at all outside of a certain lighting range.

even with toons, most people expect light to behave like light. just like, even when you write fantasy, you can't get away with people not acting like people. most of what makes your average Poser render look just plain bad and poorly done is bad lighting, and a lot of that bad lighting is just due to the gibberish renderers produce without linear workflow. most of "learning" to light is learning to compensate for lack of GI and GC. get rid of that, and you can focus on how lighting should work in general.

can GC have a problem in low light? it depends on your perspective. if you look at my gallery, you can see 2 low light GC images. i'd say they work very well, but at the same time, i wasn't satisfied. because i kept saying something about it, bagginsbill checked and learned that a simple gamma curve isn't quite as accurate as a slightly more complex sRGB equation that i use instead now. in brighter results, it's almost identical, but in darker results (meaning dark from diffuse color, diffuse shading or cast shadow), i find the difference easy to distinguish. his tests comparing GC to sRGB are here in the forums. i have a 3rd image up i'd say was kind of low light, and it uses sRGB. i prefer its reaction to lights.

did people start using GC and suggesting others do the same just because someone who knows both math and optics said so? no. if you read the threads, we asked questions, did our own research and tests, and saw major improvements. i personally was working on my own skin shader at the time, and went from basically having to have two completely different shaders for different lighting extremes to having one that worked everywhere. i like very white ambient scenes, and very dark, directional light scenes, and every time i took a skin shader i thought worked well and switched from one scene to another in tests, i had to drastically alter the shader. once i switched to linear workflow, that was no longer necessary and i could easily make materials that performed reliably regardless of the type of light.

tons of merchants use VSS PR3 because it makes their textures look better in more situations than their own shaders. there are a lot of features built into VSS PR3, but GC is one of the more important ones. another important one is conservation of energy, but that's another discussion.

does using GC change your ability to do postwork? in my experience, it improves it. i've been using Poser for years, and you can see lots of my work before i started using GC. it's not bad. but i know how much i had to do to get it to that point, and the problems i didn't like that i couldn't eliminate until i switched ot a linear workflow. it's really easy for me to increase saturation. i've literally never needed to (i have no problem getting uber saturated colors), but i could do that fairly easily. changing shading on my whole image to something that worked the way i wanted it to at every shading level was really unpleasant, imho.

do you personally have to use linear workflow? of course not.

i just did some research taught myself a few different ways of modeling braids in Blender. imho, they're all plodding and generally a bad practice. i shouldn't be doing something that's really obviously a repetitive and mathematical task by hand. it takes me a while and is prone to me making mistakes. if i instead either find a script (which i haven't been able to do so far) or learn to write my own script, i would be using a computer as it's meant to be used. that said, it would be a lot of work to begin scripting in Blender. and i'd have to actually understand the math instead of having a sort of fuzzy idea. lots of time, lots of effort. so i'd have to have a very particular project in mind to make it worth it.

the point being, even though there's lots of stuff it can be easier in the long run to let the computer handle, it still has to be broken to be worth fixing.

In the article stewer linked to, GC is discussed in an enclosed game enviroment.

There a single person has control over:

How the textures are created
What shaders are used
The settings of the render engine
The lights used

So there is absolute control from texture to finished render.
And despite all that control the article still suggests a (crude) means of "dialing in" gamma necessary before playing the game to compensate for different monitors.

The article also admits that in many cases GC can't be actually SEEN because two "wrong gammas" cancel each other out.

Poser, otoh is not a controlled game environment.
You have different artists creating textures using different cameras, processing these textures using different programs while using different monitors.
Then you have users sitting in front of different monitors, using different light sets, using different textures, using different shader setups, using different render settings.

In short, you have a mindboggling variety of variables that determin the final render and that you have no control over whatsoever.

So, running around and telling people that using a certain shader set and a certain PRO feature (Available at extra cost, thankyouverymuch), will turn their work from the usual Poser fare to CGTalk feature worthy, is....well....a little stretching reality IMVHO.

I don't argue the underlying math behind GC.

But I very much argue the conclusions drawn here.

With all due respect, but mentioning "Poser" and "Photorealism" in the same sentence reveals a lot of wishfull thinking.

There's not a single truly "photorealistic" human mesh available for Poser.
Not a single.

So the FIRST thing you'd have to do is sit down and learn how to sculpt and rig.
THEN, and only THEN you can start worrying about lights and textures and shaders.
But you'll soon find out that Poser isn't even remotely capeable of doing the things that need to be done to create "True Photorealism".

There is a reason MAX is so expensive and it takes years to master.

So, right now, as much as I love all the things the Poser team did with Poser 8 and PP2010, I will dismiss GC and most other new light features right now as pure marketing hype, similar to "All textures must be 4000x4000 minimum" and "A quality figure must have 70000+ polygons".

TRUE Photorealism takes the right equipment, talent, and years of honing that talent.

Maybe in five years Vicky 7 will actually look like a human being without extensive re-sculpting and rigging.
Maybe in five years PP2015 will have a "perfect sunny day" default light and all the bits and pieces needed to create realistic skin instead of wax candles.
Maybe even a way to create large outdoor scenes with real grass and trees.

I really, truly wish Poser will be like that some day.
Click, click, click, render, and the result will look like a photograph.
(If you WANT it to look like a photograph)

But these days aren't even close.

If SmithMicro REALLY want's to "promote TRUE PHOTOREALISM", start paying some real professional figure sculpters.

Make head to toe laser scans of some adults and kids, then let a real CGI artist create quality meshes from that data with proper detailed edgeflow and sensible UV mapping.
Then have those meshes rigged using the latest Poser tech by someone like Phantom3D who actually knows what he's doing.

Don't try to imitate Vicky. Imitate LIFE.

James 1, Koji 1 and MIKI 1 were ALMOST there.

This will do A LOT more to raise the quality of your average Poser render and promote Poser as a PRO tool than some esoteric feature that actually most CGI PROFESSIONALS haven't even heard of:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=2&t=610790

Again, I don't argue the validity of the math behind GC.

I just think this constant "hype" is at best a waste of time and in the worst case counter productive.

Clearly, an artist needs to understand the tools they are using or they will produce nothing at all. However, at times it seems that understanding Poser has become an end in itself eg, how many boxes can be linked together in the materiel room and still get a picture, rather than what it can achieve for an artist.

Poser or any pogram can only ever be a work in progress so we can't expect everything to be included within Poser at this time. Now, while some seem to like playing with shaders they scare me half to death. Procedures such as VSS, GC or IDL should work in the background, with a list of tick boxes - IDL Y/N, VSS Y/N etc, because otherwise people like me just won't use them.

Until they are made to work in the background then such as me will contine to adjust the render (or merely antialaised) in our graphics packages - and as such it means Poser is nothing more than a posing programme - having read LW's introduction in P3 I think that was all it was meant as.

Quote - Now, while some seem to like playing with shaders they scare me half to death. Procedures such as VSS, GC or IDL should work in the background, with a list of tick boxes - IDL Y/N, VSS Y/N etc, because otherwise people like me just won't use them.

That would be ideal yeah but the problem is that these features are pretty technical to begin with and difficult to simplify beyond a certain point. I mean you could reduce it all down to on/off choices (and a lot of this has already been done for poser) but then you'd run into situations where you're getting 10x the render time or 1/10th the render quality because on/off doesn't cover your particular project properly. It's generally easier to just admit that computers are dumb and leave it to their human masters to figure out what all numbers/buttons to use.

JoePublic - but GC isn't about realism, exactly. which has been pointed out. it's about correct. and all those different monitors and cameras are sRGB. see my image for an example of sRGB input in linear calculations displayed on an sRGB output (your screen). that's a color picker blue (0, 20, 140) at 50% opacity (linear divide) overlayed ( linear add) on another square of blue at 50% opacity (linear divide). in the center the color at 100% opacity. on no screen will the overlap (which is (0, 15, 105)) and the unchanged square be the same color. (0, 15, 105) isn't a _bad_ color, it's the wrong color, and not by a little.

here's the same image, but with just the wrong result corrected. notice that it's way, way too bright, because the input was never linearized.

@kobaltkween: thank you, I really enjoyed reading your post (edit: I mean the long one!). Facts, common sense, and experience. Recommended reading for everyone.

@JoePublic...

Quote - So, running around and telling people that using a certain shader set and a certain PRO feature (Available at extra cost, thankyouverymuch), will turn their work from the usual Poser fare to CGTalk feature worthy, is....well....a little stretching reality IMVHO.

This nonsense of mixing up the subjects of linear shader calculations and photorealism is entirely of your own making. No-one has ever claimed that using real-physics based shaders will produce photorealistic renders.

Quote - I will dismiss GC and most other new light features right now as pure marketing hype

You are dismissing these real advances in Poser's feature set (GC, and from the sounds of it IDL) purely on the imaginary notion that someone is telling you they will fix all your renders. But no-one is.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

and here's the whole thing with linearization of color, linear calculations, and correction of output. exactly the same color.

in my experience, from reading comments and feedback here and elsewhere (CG Society, app specific forums, etc.), most people don't have as good an eye for bad anatomy as bad lighting and bad materials.

how you arrive at good lighting and good materials is your own choice. GC is a tool for letting the computer handle color correction universally in a mathematically precise way. like any automated tool, it's only as useful to you as your workflow allows. no one's suggesting GC to people who aren't having material or lighting problems. but when i see yellow bloom and muddy shadows, and i see it in render after render, i suggest using it (among other techniques).

just to clarify, i think GC is a tick box in Poser Pro and Poser Pro 2010 render settings (i don't have either, but i've seen screen shots). i don't have Poser 8 or PP 2010 either, but i know IDL is part of the render settings. they seem more complex.

VSS is not the sample skin shader template distributed with it (a very common confusion). VSS is the Versatile Shader System, which is for making it easier to control all the materials in your scene. if you wanted, for instance, to implement a toon shader on everything in your scene, while retaining your color, bump and displacement settings, VSS would be very useful. the sample skin shader template for VSS implements a skin shader on your figures with the goal of realistic skin. that skin shader has GC in it, and a lot of other features. but VSS doesn't actually have anything to do with GC. it would be great if VSS had a slick interface and was simpler to create templates with, but it's still in alpha or beta or whatever. it's also one of the many tools bagginsbill works on in his spare time.

"However, at times it seems that understanding Poser has become an end in itself eg, how many boxes can be linked together in the materiel room and still get a picture, rather than what it can achieve for an artist."

LoL. It does seem that way at times. Ultimately however, it is always about the individual user. Just because a relatively small(?) group of users choose to tout a particular feature or SM wants to try make Poser into more of a high end application doesn't mean anyone has to buy into it. New advances are almost always good and it's good that we have people who take advantage of them and try to help others understand their use. Take what you find useful. If you find yourself doing something just because it's the new revealed wisdom, that IMO is a mistake.

The CGSociety thread JoePublic posted is informative. If a substantial number of working professionals in 3D don't full understand or utilize a feature, how can the average hobbyist Poser user be expected to respond. The difference perhaps is that the Poser user may be more influenced by suggestions that they are missing something essential. That in itself may actually be a good thing if it leads people to adopt better practices. To the degree that the presentation can be more practical, less technical and less dogmatic it will succeed beyond the minority..

Poser evolves as does the community here. The current enthusiasm for its more technical aspects may or may not wane and it may or may not lead to a schism. If the past is any indication however, there will always be room for everyone and anyone can choose to chart their own course.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Quote - Ultimately however, it is always about the individual user. Just because a relatively small(?) group of users choose to tout a particular feature or SM wants to try make Poser into more of a high end application doesn't mean anyone has to buy into it. New advances are almost always good and it's good that we have people who take advantage of them and try to help others understand their use. Take what you find useful. If you find yourself doing something just because it's the new revealed wisdom, that IMO is a mistake.

The tone in these threads gives one the impression that the majority of Poser users read the forums. Seriously, how many Poser artists actually read these forums? I've read posts by Poser users with posting numbers under 10 who claim they've been using Poser for years. I think we might be flattering ourselves to think that we're reaching a large part of the Poser community.

I have bought into the concept that Poser colour processing has issues which users (successfully of unsuccessfully) compensate for with adding more lights. That's just a fact. My issue is this (one that I've repeated a few times before): why is gamma-correction considered a pro feature? If a renderer processes linear colours correctly and sRGB colours incorrectly, why hasn't this been fixed within the software?

If an operating system has a major security breach which makes it unsafe to use, most OS makers (whether MS or Canonical or whoever) put a lot of resources into fixing this problem.

Poser processes colour for a living. Well, FireFly does. FireFly processes colour for the casual Poser user incorrectly, but for those who decide to invest in Poser Pro 2010 the corrected method is considered a "Pro Feature". Just look at this: it doesn't make sense. If something core to a programme doesn't work properly, it needs to be fixed for all users, not just those willing to pay the extra amount. That just smells bad, to me.

And on the basis of that I can see where people might see this whole GC thing as just a ploy to get Poser users to invest in the upgraded product. But it's just not right.

Here's the thing... for the rest of us unwashed Visigoths using Poser 5-6-7-8, we need to either GC all our materials or find some other solution so that colours are processed linearly (i.e., correctly). Fair enough... and so we invest hours and hours 1) learning how to work in the material room - which I'm quite fond of but MOST artists find about as appealing as going for a dip at the local water treatment plant 2) put a node-set together that deals with straight colour (diffuse)... then 3) put a node-set together that deals with colour (diffuse) and and specularity...

Sheesh, let's just look at that "3)" for a minute. I've been mucking around a fair bit now with linearising colours (and there was some discussion whether each colour should be individually linearised before blending or anything else that involves the use of colours), then processing with Diffuse() then correcting before handing over to PoserSurface(). But now, we've got a new wrinkle: specularity. There's a few more nodes available than what's inside the Specular_Colour channel. Blinn() is supposedly the most accurate, but for what? And then, you need to subtract that value from the diffuse value (Conservation of Energy) ... and suddenly, at this point, almost all Poser artists run screaming into the night.

But I'm still there. Even if things are getting a bit grey, now. Simply because One Node Set cannot hope to satisfy all material needs.

And the instruction set for where to go from here is sketchy, disjointed and fraught with "It Depends". I'm starving for more concise information. I'm pretty sure something is in the pipeline, but in the meantime, are my shaders bogus because I'm not "being physically accurate"?

To those that see this as a reason to chuck the baby out with the bath water, I say this: in nursing, a good recovery-room nurse lives in a constant state of wariness and uncertainty about a patient's condition. That is why my patients do well: because I am alert to the possibility that I might have missed something and constantly reassess. A lot of nurses on the ward cling to old practices because that is what they are comfortable with and whilst many of their patients do okay, others suffer problems because of lack of vigilence.
So, I am comfortable being in a state of uncertainty. I'm always ready to try something I've never done before. To me, this is what makes Poser such a rich programme (even with the issues): you can find solutions to whatever you want to create. No band-wagon here... nothing easy or click-a-button solution: you have to think, consider what is being offered and see science for what it is. You can chose to ignore it but the fact remains: this is what happens in colour processing. Take it or leave it. Doesn't mean I have an answer on where to go from there, but oh well.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Hum
[http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch24.html

"For example, by convention, all JPEG files are precorrected for a gamma of 2.2."!!!!
:cursing:
In pp, cheked gamma correction =gamma correction of precorrected gamma texture= gamma error

Solution:not to save in jpeg format, using a format nondestructive and no gamma precorrected ex. png,. tif; hdr, and other
Or, use gamma inverse node in materials room

Sorry for my bad english

Ps:Jpeg=inadapted format for the 3d applications
](http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch24.html)

Ok, let me say up front that I do use GC and that I'm immensely grateful to those who figured it all out, explained it and showed us how to use it, and all for free too. Kudos to them.

That said, I'll tell you why this issue is so divisive:

Time and again I have seen, in technical threads dealing with GC matters, comments such as 'If you don't use GC all you get is crap' and, "Without GC all you produce is rubbish'. Those are the actual words used.

And for many people that is simply rude and insulting, and possibly demoralising. It's also not the truth, which only makes matters worse.

Artistic merit isn't just about GC (shh!) - it's about capturing somebody's imagination, intriguing them, inspiring them or making them think for a moment. It's about telling a story or touching an emotion. It's about amazing them.

And then somebody who might well have achieved all those things in their artwork has their entire portfolio rubbished just because of some yellow bloom or a few dark shadows! No wonder it gets people's backs up!

The comments in this thread by comparison have been much more diplomatic and considerate, to the effect that good pictures can be made even better with GC applied. Unfortunately that's not the usual message given out by the GC gurus in other threads.

GC should be on everyone's list of priorities, but it doesn't need to be near the top. There are things much more important - the kind of things I mentioned above.

It doesn't help that all we ever see from the gurus is a blankly staring V4/M4 in a bland setting and no attempt whatsoever at artistry. It must be disheartening (and annoying) for your inspired and carefully crafted image to be relegated to 'crap' compared to these endless series of technical renders (which aren't always that good technically anyway).

I think the GC gurus should marry their undisputed technical wizardry with a little bit of diplomacy, or just common politeness. It can be done, as we've seen in this thread. It just so rarely is in other threads.

On occasion I've seen the most amazingly technically accomplished Poser images posted here, of V4 or Miki or whatever in a simple scene. Beautifully lit and wonderfully rendered. Some have looked almost like a photograph. I've been awed by them, and I mean that sincerely.

But then I've thought to myself, "If this image actually was a photograph, what would I think of it then?"
And usually the answer is: not much, actually. Not compared to the brilliantly creative photography seen here or on other dedicated photography sites. And then I realise that the Poser image's merit lies exclusively in the fact that it looks quite like a photograph. Clever, impressive etc., but not enough to make it a real work of art.

And then I'll see another image by somebody far less technically accomplished that has a bit of yellow bloom or some overly dark shadows or whatever, but see something in it that really excites my imagination.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Me? I'm going to keep trying to make art with cool ideas and use GC to make it look as good as I can. But I'm going to keep my priorities in order :-)

Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/

I wanted to mention two items:

tone mapping (exposure control, poser 8 (non-pro)) can achieve a nearly linear response, like GC, when used with gain, as shown by bill in another thread
poser 8 (non-pro) writes the Gamma and UseGamma variables to pz3, but when I tried to set these in a script, it gave an error indicating there's no SetGamma nor SetUseGamma in FFRender (poser 8 (non-pro)). but maybe my script was wrong.

> Quote - tone mapping (exposure control, poser 8 (non-pro)) can achieve a nearly linear response, like GC, when used with gain, as shown by bill in another thread

... and these were his recommended settings, if I recall correctly.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

Quote - [The tone in these threads gives one the impression that the majority of Poser users read the forums. Seriously, how many Poser artists actually read these forums? I've read posts by Poser users with posting numbers under 10 who claim they've been using Poser for years. I think we might be flattering ourselves to think that we're reaching a large part of the Poser community.

Totally agree. I've been using Poser since 2003. I've lurked in the forums under the account that is linked to paypal in our household for quite some time. But this forum is not a Poser mecca.

Quote - have bought into the concept that Poser colour processing has issues which users (successfully of unsuccessfully) compensate for with adding more lights. That's just a fact.

This is not true for me. I don't think it's necessarily true for most users. And this description of what GC or does not do is exactly what confused me.

I don't use GC in my renders. But I also don't compensate by adding more lights. I don't see yellow blooms.

What I do see in my raw renders, and in images posted to the gallery, are renders that are too dark, and slightly desaturated.

Most of the time it isn't obvious to me when I view the completed render within poser itself because for some reason poser displays on my machine with a little more contrast than do other image viewing/editing applications. I don't know why.

However, 99% of the time, taking that render and applying a photoshop preset in curves fixes it instantly.

If I'm compositing the alpha channel against another layer as a background, then I might use the exposure adjustment, and compare the two layers in gray scale.

So, thanks to this thread, I've concluded that when I have to do that anyway, adjusting GC ahead of time within Poser itself is really a waste of time.

In the end, it boils down to what I enjoy doing with my time.

I have the choice of changing some nodes, rendering, changing some more nodes, rendering, changing the first node back, rendering, posting my 3 renders to the forums, changing 22 nodes on advice of the forum, rendering, changing the lighting, rendering, changing the lighting some more, rendering, posting to the forum with 3 more renders, changing my lighting on advice of the forum, rendering, changing a few nodes to compensate for the lighting change, rendering, changing the nodes some more, rendering, posting my revised renders to the forums, changing 17 nodes on advice from the forums, changing those nodes again on conflicting advice from the forums, rendering, posting my suicide note in the forums, hanging myself.

Or, I could render, change the lighting, render, open photoshop, adjust with curves or exposure -- watch the changes in real time in the preview - save, share the finished image.

Some people like solving puzzles and some people like making pictures. There's a lot of overlap between the 2 groups, but when our primary interests don't intersect, I think we have trouble communicating because our goals are different.

Snarlygribbly -- Yes, exactly.**
**

> Quote - > > So, thanks to this thread, I've concluded that when I have to do that anyway, adjusting GC ahead of time within Poser itself is really a waste of time. > > In the end, it boils down to what I enjoy doing with my time. > > I have the choice of changing some nodes, rendering, changing some more nodes, rendering, changing the first node back, rendering, posting my 3 renders to the forums, changing 22 nodes on advice of the forum, rendering, changing the lighting, rendering, changing the lighting some more, rendering, posting to the forum with 3 more renders, changing my lighting on advice of the forum, rendering, changing a few nodes to compensate for the lighting change, rendering, changing the nodes some more, rendering, posting my revised renders to the forums, changing 17 nodes on advice from the forums, changing those nodes again on conflicting advice from the forums, rendering, posting my suicide note in the forums, hanging myself. > > Or, I could render, change the lighting, render, open photoshop, adjust with curves or exposure -- watch the changes in real time in the preview - save, share the finished image. > > Some people like solving puzzles and some people like making pictures. .

Lets no forget there are a few evangelical
users for whom any out of app postwork
is greatest of evils as it is "cheating"

Me??
I cant wait to get my raw render into post production for adjustment color grading using my NikSoftware "color effects pro"
plugins for photoshop CS3

Cheers

Raw render from Vray attached

...and final comp

OK I have to start commenting SOMEWHERE in a thread that has sprouted three new pages ssince I last read it L So I'll start with this quote:

Quote -

The tone in these threads gives one the impression that the majority of Poser users read the forums. Seriously, how many Poser artists actually read these forums? I've read posts by Poser users with posting numbers under 10 who claim they've been using Poser for years. I think we might be flattering ourselves to think that we're reaching a large part of the Poser community.

Remember that not all forumites are inclined to actually comment. Some are apparently satisfied with *reading" for years and years. I suppose it's like watching television.. there's no need to yell at the TV... Personally (as it's obvious from my post-count) I find the concept alien, but OTOH I know several really OLDTIMERS here with very low post counts. Doesn't make them less active here when it comes to reading and absorbing the reading. They're just not commenting.

And then.. Aeilkema.. How come, no matter WHAT The F is discussed here, you always have to be so negative about it? I seriously pity you. It must be hell always to be looking at the bad side of life.

And you'll probably tell me I'm dead wrong and you're never negative, just sceptical or something. Well it comes out as NEGATIVE. And it's getting tedious. At least to me.

Of course, Gamma Correction isn't absolutely necessary. After all, it was a feature introduced in Poser 7 Pro and saying it is absolutely necessary is the same as saying any render before P7P is crap. Which of course is not the fact. Some people learned, very cleverly, to compensate for the lack of gamma correction, either by carefully selecting the JUST RIGHT lights, or, like me, by postworking the living cr** out of my renders. The end result is what counts.

And there are situations that looks WRONG with GC (bear in mind that I do not own any Poser Pro, except the very FIRST Poser pro which is essentially Poser 4 and thus doesn't really count ;) ) at least the GC you can get by manipulating materials into linear .. er.. thingie (OK I'm cr*p at remembering terms)

but that doesn't mean that GC is neither The Big Thing nor The BAD thing. Just that it's optional and may very well improve your rrenders. If you don't want to fuss with it.. leave it and postwork or whatever you used to do. JP's pic illustrates quite nicely that ok things can be achieved without GC (then again although both renders are NICE, I don't find any of them photorealistic

And that's the next thing. Photorealism. Listen there's a reason why it's called PHOTOrealism. It's not because it should look like something you can see with your naked EYE - it's like something you could see on a PHOTO.

Even a photo isn't realistic. When you look at something with your own eyes you won't have a finite distance blur, because your eyes will adapt. When you look at the horizon, your eyes adapt to the big distance and when you then switch focus to a snail righ in front of you, your eyes adapt.

A photo, being a static NOW can't do both. With a photo you can EITHER focus on the snail, and have a blurry background - OR focus on the horizon and have a blurry snail. Unless you're using CG, which is capable of having both in focu, but for that very reasun tells your brain that "here's something wrong"

And you may not even realise WHAT is wrong. It niggles your brain as "wrong" but the thing is.. a static picture can NEVER react like your eye would. And when, like in common CG, it does, it comes off as WRONG.

For a long time, I've been trying to make *PHOTO" real pictures with Poser. I've found that it requires a LOT of phtotshopping to blur edges, blur distances and in general.. make the thing into B/W. The human eye is adapted to recognize human skin and CG skin will almost always look wrong. In small amounts, but still wrong. Once you make the whole thing into blac-and-white however, your brain treats what you see as a "picture" and is apparently a lot more forgiving. People with Psychology degrees can probably tell you a lot more about the phenomenon.

As I said, I'm a recent VSS/Material GC convert. Now that I've seen what it CAN do, I'm GC'ing textures and stuff.. sometimes it looks better, sometimes it looks worse. When it looks better, I use it. When not, I skip it.

Perhaps a simple way to answer the question of "What's the big deal with gamma correction?" is to generate before and after images, as shown above. Left image was rendered without gamma correction. Right image was rendered with gamma correction. Same textures, same lights, same render settings. One can choose to furiously postwork the left image and it still looks ugly several hours later, or one can sit back and let Poser perform gamma correction to produce the superior image on the right. It's entirely a personal choice really.

> Quote - > Perhaps a simple way to answer the question of "What's the big deal with gamma correction?" is to generate before and after images, as shown above. Left image was rendered without gamma correction. Right image was rendered with gamma correction. Same textures, same lights, same render settings. One can choose to furiously postwork the left image and it still looks ugly several hours later, or one can sit back and let Poser perform gamma correction to produce the superior image on the right. It's entirely a personal choice really.

HI I am confused this is a screen cap of your post
are you saying the one on the LEFT near your name& Avatar
is the "ugly" one???

I strongly Disagree
the one to the RIGHT of "8:56 pm" is flat and the shadows lack depth particulary under the chin. even though the LEFT image is a little "muddy" but easily Adjusted in Photoshop in seconds NOT "HOURS"

Cheers

My website

YouTube Channel

personal choice indeed,I prefer the left image which has a much better use of lights & darks & is the more interesting image to look at.

I also agree with most of Wolfs comments,its sad that so many here are treated like pariahs because they dont use GC...its being treated like the holy grail for Poser users but I've yet to see anything remotely photoreal come from Poser.
also bear in mind the majority of Poser users are fantasy artists,GC is pretty much irrelevant for that.
I see a clash here between those that approach this as an artform & those that approach it from a scientific point of view...nobodys wrong.

I might use it in Poser if there were other advanced/photorealistic features like physical skys,photometric lights & physical cameras..but just GC alone seems to create nothing but washed out renders where theres a lack of rich darks & brights to bring the image alive.
basicaly the glowing nostril syndrome on a global scale.

I've used it a few times in 3dsmax(in conjunction with the features mentioned above)..but I still prefer rendering without it,but I also render everything as a seperate element (spec,reflect,shadow,light,ao etc) & control it all in post.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=882838&page=5&pp=15
then again postwork is my favourite part of the process & when a straight render doesn't require it I tend to feel dissapointed.

to each their own..just dont tell people they are 'wrong' for not using it and all will be good :)

Cg Society Portfolio

I thought we were in agreement that Gc brightened the render, so it is necessary to reduce the intensity of the light sets. Hawarren's renders only prove there is a difference and adjustments to lighting under Gc need to be made within Poser to correct it. Of course, the image can be postworked, but lets see if the same results can be achieved by illumination reduction.

The perfect Poser shader?

Oh come on, we've been through this time and again: what is superficially more pleasing to the eye is not necessarily what is correct. hawarren's comparison clearly shows the GC render as far superior in tonal balance and contrast, but because the lighting was adjusted to be correct for the non-GC render, the non-GC render may appear more pleasing to the casual viewer.

In other words, the comparison is skewed.

But if you adjust the lighting to be correct for the GC render, and then switch GC off, the non-GC render will be complete trash. This would skew the comparison the other way, with far more dramatic results.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

Quote"Oh come on, we've been through this time and again: what is superficially more pleasing to the eye is not necessarily what is correct. "

By that logic, IsaoShi, what is superficialy wrong to the eye is not necessarily wrong, but when we talk about images if it is superficialy wrong to the eye then it is wrong. And could we see the two faces lit for GC Hawarren please, because I am with Wolf, the left looks better to me so far.

" I think we might be flattering ourselves to think that we're reaching a large part of the Poser community."

You're preaching to the choir there. I've always maintained that this forum represents only a small fraction of the program's users and the advanced users here are yet another (smaller) subset.

"...why is gamma-correction considered a pro feature?"

I think I can sympathize with what you're saying in terms of wanting it to be available to everyone. That would meet the needs of those with the skills and motivation who just can't justify spending money on a Pro version. But they had to save some of the leather seats, walnut trim and Bose sound system for the deluxe model. You got air conditioning (i.e. mega content manager) so maybe next year’s model.

Part of the problem with 3D goes beyond money though. It has always been a techie field. If you look at publishing, video, even programming, the tech barriers have steadily been lowered to the point where the proverbial "anyone" can get into it. There has been little incentive to change that within a limited market. If anything, the "pros" are disinclined to see things get less complex.

Of course, the mantra is 'these things are just complicated...,' Within limits, I agree but the software industry has always been able to reduce or hide the complexity. Anyone who ever looked at the code to get a simple window on screen using C++ and then looked at VB or Delphi knows the paradigm. Do you give up some power and flexibility, yes. Do provide an incredible amount of power and flexibility to many more people just the same - absolutely. Daz, with their one click, anybody can be a 3D artist approach in some ways is carrying on that original Poser spirit. They've also spent a lot of time, IMO, thinking about the mass market and how to make their features easy to use.

I'm not carrying water for Daz. I've just started playing with DS3, but I'm impressed with the way things work. One can sniff at how it doesn't do this or that, but I think that misses the larger point. There's nothing wrong with adding features but if you only address that subset of a subset, is that a viable strategy long term? By all means, GC for everyone, but as long as the perception is that it is advanced or difficult then SM has less incentive to do that. If just ticking the box doesn't provide instant nirvana and the answers to basic practical questions require equations and graphs or Nvidia tech papers, then the plebes will stick to bread and circuses, the Visigoths will keep battering the walls and the Emperor will dream on of becoming the Maya king’s favorite consort.

To a great extent, Poser broke the mold for it's part of 3D - human figure rendering. It made 3D truly accessible for the hobbyist and casual user. Now, it is becoming more and more like the other applications. That’s cool as long as they don’t forget the girl who brought them to the dance.

“The comments in this thread by comparison have been much more diplomatic and considerate…”

And I suspect that in the back of our minds we all know why that is but I’ll keep it in the back of my mind.

“…its sad that so many here are treated like pariahs because they don’t use GC”

No one ever said or implied such a thing. Remember that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, and in alliance with Eastasia. Please return to your flat and watch the prolefeeds. Absolutely stunning render BTW.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Just my 2cents, the image on the left looks better to me, the image on the right leans toward those images you see where the poster hasn't worked to get decent shadows on the image.

Just my take, bye:)

A rule of thumb: in Poser, we pretty much consistently use subjective assessment to discount objective fact. We use what we see to prove or disprove what cannot be assessed visually. (Like hyper-colours, for instance).

It's really quite simple, folks. Poser needs linear data to process colours correctly. Poser Pro offers that capability within the software, Poser 5-6-7-8 do not. You can try to argue that away, but it remains a simple, incontrovertible fact. BB has provided a material-room solution to accomplish that. Take it or leave it.

Whether or not the solution is correct (as opposed to corrected-sRGB or some other colour-linearising schema) or whether this solution produces better images is entirely up to the user to decide.

Whether Poser processes colours correctly using PoserSurface without some form of colour-linearising is not a matter of discussion.

It does not. Simple as that.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

great statement, RobynsVeil. the only thing i'd change is:

"Whether [any renderer] processes colours correctly without some form of colour-linearising is not a matter of discussion."

the D|S way is great if you want independent developers locked out and high barriers to learning. pretty much 0 of the techies for the various aspects Poser have equivalents in D|S, because cost and contracts keep the community much more closed. pretty much 0 of the techies for Poser would been in forums sharing information, because they either wouldn't have paid for the privilege to be a developer (by their own words), or they wouldn't have shared information they payed to acquire.

it's the Apple style solution, which is great if you don't mind being completely dependent on a relatively small set of developers and innovators who don't share information or let in new blood much at all. not so great if you'd rather spend time than money, or you're a developer who's not blessed.

all here that use GC (and i'm seeing more and more that silently incorporate VSS PR3 into their content) can do so for no extra cost beyond paying for Poser 6. it's probably possible for D|S, but there's no one in the D|S community to explain how to make advanced materials based on physics for D|S. there's no one making free, advanced level tools.

it's a huge assumption that most Poser users outside of the forums are less advanced users than the group of techies here. that's completely the opposite of what i've seen. year after year, i watched non-techie college students learn to use aspects of Poser most claim are way too difficult to master. but the ones i showed this place for certain freebies were driven away by all the "slutty" (their term, not mine) women. they all made their own content, and were comfortable doing so in a very short period of time. the same students had to use some of the media editing programs lmckenzie referred to, and they had more problems with those.

most uses of Poser i've seen outside of this community have been far more advanced than average, and rarely use any commercial content. when you aren't spending money on every little advance, or even every render, and you really don't have a choice, Poser is apparently pretty easy to learn.

i think people are really misunderstanding the issue, because they keep bringing up the "quality" of the eyeballing it method. linear workflow isn't about individual quality choices. it's about addressing specific color problems, which are both with darks and lights, in a way that involves less guess work and is therefore more reliable for most. it's like following a blueprint. for most people, that's going to be easier than eyeballing everything. but people can and did build incredible structures just by estimating everything and doing everything by hand.

Quote - "

“…its sad that so many here are treated like pariahs because they don’t use GC”

No one ever said or implied such a thing. Remember that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia,

Really??
Well not to mention any names
but I know of a thread where a person
asked for advise on lighting in a render
and certain high profile Guru asked
"Did you GC your materials?"
the OP said: "No"

the GURU said rather tersely:
(paraphrasing)"GO BACK.. USE GAMMA CORRECTION!!!
and come back to us and we will continue
this discussion....."

I found that very off putting
and after being browbeaten with alot of node formulas and non comprehensive
gobbledygook from the GC evangelists, the OP took her scene into vue and got a lighting/shadow result she liked.

Frankly when I see statements like
"You can spend hours in photoshop or let
poser do it right in the first place"
I start to suspect that
GC in poser is the new sacred refuge
of the evangelical antipostwork,
anti "cheating "purists".

cheers

My website

YouTube Channel

So the issue isn't really GC per-se, it's the manner in which it's presented? Does that matter?

Have you been on a real CG site, Wolf? This is coddling, here.

ETS: Alright, I apologise, Wolf. While the manner is abrupt, the message is clear. And that's really all that matters. If someone presents with an issue that has already been fixed in a previous post, then one can imagine patience wearing thin.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - So the issue isn't really GC per-se, it's the manner in which it's presented? Does that matter?

Have you been on a real CG site, Wolf? This is coddling, here.

ETS: Alright, I apologise, Wolf. While the manner is abrupt, the message is clear. And that's really all that matters. If someone presents with an issue that has already been fixed in a previous post, then one can imagine patience wearing thin.

Both matter.
and in the thread about which I speak
neither the node formulas and stream of non comprehensive gobbledygook,
nor the Condescending tone of the "GURU"
resulted in improving the OP's render
but ironicly rendering the scene in another program did the job nicely.

and yes even on CG.society.org
ill mannered "help" is rebuffed
by other thread participants and moderators.
as far as someone presenting an issue that has already been "fixed" well this entire thread is debating the question weather
poserpro GC is an absolute "fix"
especially for people with no basic lighting skills in the first place.

but Ive made my view on the matter
clear enough I think.

Cheers to all

My website

YouTube Channel

The issue has never really been GC. Nobody minds being advised of a useful technique that might help them in their endeavours. Why would anybody?

It's always been about the way it's presented, which has often been rude, patronising and inconsiderate. Wolf's example is but one of countless that could have been given.

Does it matter?

Depends. See the antipathy, devisiveness and resentment that's been generated. You just have to decide whether any of that matters. For some it will and for some it won't.

We all know that you have to be thick-skinned to survive in public internet forums, but that doesn't mean anyone should go out of there way to make people feel ill at ease in this one.

As I've said above, I'm a GC advocate. I love it and am very grateful for the knowledge and tools that have been made available to me for free.

But I don't play an active part in any GC debates here simply because I don't want the embarrasment of being associated with the arrogance all too often associated with the GC 'message'.

If anybody asks me in private about GC I recommend it strongly and explain why. I would, however, never, ever suggest that they can only produce 'crap' without it.

Call it coddling. I call it politeness.

Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/

To those who said hawarrens' left hand render looks better:

Of course it does, if you had understood what he said in his post you would know that the lighting was correct for that particular render, and incorrect for the render with GC.

This does not in any way alter the fact that ONLY in the right hand render are the shaders operating linearly and accurately, because GC was used.

Using linear shaders does NOT automatically equal great renders.
Using non-linear shaders does NOT automatically equal bad renders.

How many times do we have to repeat this before we stop arguing back and forth about two points of view that IN NO WAY CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER?

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

Quote-"Oh come on, we've been through this time and again: what is superficially more pleasing to the eye is not necessarily what is correct. hawarren's comparison clearly shows the GC render as far superior in tonal balance and contrast, but because the lighting was adjusted to be correct for the non-GC render, the non-GC render may appear more pleasing to the casual viewer."

When speaking about art your statement is absolutely false.
A friend of mine who works at a production house put it this way, "We like our work gamma corrected because that way we have a neutral canvas to apply post production enhancements. If what you're going for is dramatic lighting then you don't want "tonal balance". In fact you want the opposite"
In the above pair of renders the one on the left is clearly more dramatic and therefore more interesting.

What is superficially pleasing to the eye is what art is all about.

Quote - When speaking about art your statement is absolutely false.

I thought I was making it perfectly clear that I am absolutely NOT speaking about art. This is NOT about art at all, but about mathematical accuracy in the software we use.

I'm speaking about shaders operating accurately in linear colour space; or shaders operating inaccurately in non-linear colour space.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

As for bb's absence (I don't mind saying it) I sometimes cringe at his direct methods of presenting things, but I sympathise with the following view...

If we have some software that we know to be flawed - in this case, inaccurate shaders operating in non-linear colour space - and we have the means to eliminate that flaw, why in heaven's name would anyone NOT want to do so?

Well, here are several perfectly good reasons to be going on with:- I don't understand it; it's more effort than it's worth; it's an unnecessary complication to my workflow; etc. For what little it's worth, I personally have no argument with any of those reasons. (It's easy for me - I positively want all my shaders to be linear, and that's why I use Pro).

Then there are the not-so-good reasons: I don't like anyone telling me what to do, so I'm not going to do it; I'm going to tell everyone else that it does nothing but mess up my renders even though I don't understand why.

"If I were a shadow, I know I wouldn't like to be half of what I should be."
Mr Otsuka, the old black tomcat in Kafka on the Shore (Haruki Murakami)

I just don't see an eye-popping difference I guess.
Both the examples in this thread (M4 and the one above) look better to me without it.
Perhaps if I save and example using the simple application of GC I might change my mind.
Maybe the above example could be posted with the lighting corrected for GC.

Quote - I just don't see an eye-popping difference I guess.
Both the examples in this thread (M4 and the one above) look better to me without it.
Perhaps if I save and example using the simple application of GC I might change my mind.
Maybe the above example could be posted with the lighting corrected for GC.

There's that "see" again.
Mathematically correct is not something that can be visually assessed.

I agree with IsaoShi: BB's style can be brusque, but no more so than many other posters on this forum, including posters on this thread. Me being one. So, if one is going to let the lack of politeness keep one from considering a new but accurate concept, there's going to be huge holes in that person's understanding. My University profs didn't bother with politeness. Valuable information comes in all forms.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

My test using two lights, one Infinite and one Diffuse IBL. Left is without GC. The right with GC enabled.

I'd prefer to accept everybody the way they are. if I'm wrong about something, they should not
be afraid of violating some unwritten code of niceties when telling me how to fix it.

this is how critics of poser renders have been received since day 1. be kind and polite and say
"wow, great pic" and ye'll have no arguments, but be honest and get to the point with no formalities,
and they'll march on the castle with pitchforks and torches. this is why they're still dumping stuff in
poser galleries that looks like it came out of poser 3 or poser 4.

p.s. they're not saying ya gotta use GC, they're just saying it's a mathematically sound way of
dealing with imgs that look like they came out of poser 3 or poser 4. but there are many other
ways.

Kirwyn, can I ask a serious question, I'm not being funny or awkward, does the figure on the right have VSS applied?

Not a problem. I should have mentioned that both were rendered in Poser Pro 2010. VSS was not used. It sounds crazy, but I bought Pro strictly because of the one button Gamma Correction. I liked the way one could setup GC in Poser 8, but all those nodes in the Material Room were driving me daffy.

*If we have some software that we know to be flawed - in this case, inaccurate shaders operating in non-linear colour space - and we have the means to eliminate that flaw, why in heaven's name would anyone NOT want to do so?

This would be true if everyone was using a perfectly tuned sRGB monitor, like BB and you probably do. I have a two monitor setup, one capable of sRGB setting and a one that hasn't that feature. I also have two colour-printers: a laser and an 8 colourinkjet printer. But there is absolutely no way to make a image that looks the same on one of those mediums, inspite of every calibrating tool I used.
I use the sRGB monitor for rendering, because that is supposed to be a "realistic" setting, but as a matter of fact I like the tonemapping of Poser8 more than the GC-feature of Posepro

But there is more: the human eye can see colours by three receptors, red, green and blue. There are more receptors for green and blue, so the eye is more responsive to greenish colours, but.... the red receptors are more active when there's more light. So in broad daylight we see more reddish colours and in the twilight we see more green-blueish colours. Also the amount of red,green and blue receptors is genetical determined, some people even lack some of the receptors and are colourblind.
In other words: there is absolutely no way to determine if someone sees a colour the same way as somebody else does, except by statistic inquiries. And just like ergonomics, which is also a statiscal "science", the difference can be huge.
So there is nothing like a correct way to correct your shaders, everything is literally in the eye of the beholder.

best regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Quote - *If we have some software that we know to be flawed - in this case, inaccurate shaders operating in non-linear colour space - and we have the means to eliminate that flaw, why in heaven's name would anyone NOT want to do so?

This would be true if everyone was using a perfectly tuned sRGB monitor, like BB and you probably do. I have a two monitor setup, one capable of sRGB setting and a one that hasn't that feature. I also have two colour-printers: a laser and an 8 colourinkjet printer. But there is absolutely no way to make a image that looks the same on one of those mediums, inspite of every calibrating tool I used.
I use the sRGB monitor for rendering, because that is supposed to be a "realistic" setting, but as a matter of fact I like the tonemapping of Poser8 more than the GC-feature of Posepro

But there is more: the human eye can see colours by three receptors, red, green and blue. There are more receptors for green and blue, so the eye is more responsive to greenish colours, but.... the red receptors are more active when there's more light. So in broad daylight we see more reddish colours and in the twilight we see more green-blueish colours. Also the amount of red,green and blue receptors is genetical determined, some people even lack some of the receptors and are colourblind.
In other words: there is absolutely no way to determine if someone sees a colour the same way as somebody else does, except by statistic inquiries. And just like ergonomics, which is also a statiscal "science", the difference can be huge.
So there is nothing like a correct way to correct your shaders, everything is literally in the eye of the beholder.

best regards,

Bopper.

Trying to sort where Poser's need for linear colour data to process colours correctly falls into that.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

r. e. Oceania

Wolf, I thought that you of all people would have gotten the 1984 revisionist history reference. I assume you deliberately ignored it :-)

Even I am getting tired of hearing myself repeat myself so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts on this.

GC is a good and important tool. How good and how important will vary between individuals based on their experience, interest, taste and ultimate goals.

GC in isolation is not a magic ‘make good render’ solution.

Comparing what is pleasing to the eye with what is physically correct is probably a bad tack to take with artists. Not an invalid argument, just an unfortunate confluence because what looks good is going to beat what is correct seven ways to Sunday with artists or even non-artist viewers. If you’re talking Homeland Security trying to deduce explosive components from the light spectrum of a blast, then yeah, but Vicky, not so much.

The notion that science can, will or necessarily should influence the real world based on objective truth alone is naive. Politics have an influence even inside the laboratory and they have a profound effect outside of it. Politics is all about presentation and persuasion and to say that the way science is presented is irrelevant is simply wrong. It is wrong that is, if your goal is to win people over to your point of view – see vaccines, climate change etc. You can’t use dismissive, dogmatic or arrogant rhetoric in support of your position and then express dismay that people don’t buy what you’re selling. You can say that presentation shouldn’t matter when you have truth on your side, but I’m sorry, it does matter – it matters a great deal.

There has to be a medium between overawing people with numbers and essentially saying ‘if you don’t understand that then just trust us and do it or your work is bad.’ If Stephen Hawking can explain cosmology in a manner accessible to the reasonably intelligent layman, it can be done. In my experience, the people here are of above average intelligence, though not all are mathematically inclined. They are passionate about art, curious and certainly willing to learn new techniques. Most of them however don’t like being talked down to or having their questions or ideas dismissed out of hand. None of us are perfect on that score but sometimes it goes a little too far – acknowledgements appreciated.

If you don’t want to influence anyone, don’t care how your ideas are perceived and think that politeness is a synonym for weakness or capitulation then certainly ignore all of the above. Good ideas have a way of prevailing even when [their] proponents are sometimes their own worst enemies.

I don’t know that I learned a whole lot more about GC, but I have been motivated to look at it more and in that sense this has been more valuable than most of the other threads on the subject. So I thank everyone for a fun, interesting and civil discussion.

*“*A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.” - Rosalynn Carter

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Thanks kirwyn,

GC looks very effective on the image you have posted and I can see it being of value in particular renders. I'll have to investigate the node setup as I'm working in P8.

Cheers :)

Quote - > Quote - I just don't see an eye-popping difference I guess.

Both the examples in this thread (M4 and the one above) look better to me without it.
Perhaps if I save and example using the simple application of GC I might change my mind.
Maybe the above example could be posted with the lighting corrected for GC.

There's that "see" again. Mathematically correct is not something that can be visually assessed.

OK, now let's be really honest, I know everyone is dying to say this, so let me be the one. Who in the world cares if an image is mathematically correct or not if no one can see the difference. If I'm using any feature and I can no see any difference at all, but all it does is make my image mathematically correct, I don't see a use for it.

As a regular user I could care less if my image is mathematically correct or not, I'm not really into math that deeply that I could care about that....... All I see is results. If the results are not pleasing to the eye, then mathematically correct is of no use to me at all.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

Back again, just spent some time doing GC v Non GC renders using Bantha's Wacro which seems to be endorsed by Bagginsbill on the thread where you can download it.

Pros:- Very quick to apply to a figure using the Wacro, it's something that you could use without it becoming an issue.

Cons:- To be honest I wasn't overly impressed by the result, the Wacro works fine, I don't mean the python scripting, what I mean is that the textures seemed to wash out too much even after lowering the lights to compensate. When I lowered the lights even further to aleviate the wash out, the whole scene seemed too murky. On first try it was a bit too much like VSS which I don't use due to the washed out waxy look it gives to skin shaders.

On the whole I find the Real Skin Shaders do a much nicer job and will probably continue to use them, when I render in Poser, as GC ing and VSS doesn't produce anything like a good result for me.

Also on the newer V4 M4 etc textures the nodes seem to be set up to give a Real Skin Shader type of result, so to me GC and VSS are not really necessary and don't give as good a result.

I used a plain old V3 skin to do my tests and the effort to compensate for the wash out of GC and to try to put some decent shadows back into the image seemed to negate GC ing in the first place.

As for the mathematically correct argument, well I don't like maths and have no interest in it. If the programme can't do the maths properly in the first place then that's down to Poser. I don't need to buy Pro 2010 as I have other applications in which I do most of my renders, and maybe that's why I don't render much in Poser these days except for tests to get things set up.

I gave it a try but I'm unimpressed by the results I was getting, perhaps I'm doing it wrong but if so then it's a bit of a time waste as there are quicker ways to acheive better results for me.

If it works for you then that's great, I really mean that.

Cheers.

Um, if you read that thread of Bantha's, he did say that the GC nodes will need a bit of adjusting, particularly if you use the GC2 wacro. Acts like a point-and-click, but there's a bit more to it.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

I've been following this thread closely over the past few days, and I've read a lot of stuff that's useful and interesting, a good deal of stuff that's not quite right, and some stuff that's completely wrong. Gamma Correction is really quite easy to understand, but explaining it to other people is quite difficult (I'm trying to write a short thing about Gamma and GC in Poser, currently on about my 10th edit).

If you don't understand what "gamma" is, and what gamma correction does, I don't think you should be using it. When you get results you don't expect, you won't have a clue why.

Also, GC in Poser in anything other than PoserPro is a pain to set up. Yes, you can do it using the many techniques discussed in this and other threads on the subject, but you need to know what you're doing and why. Adopting a gamma-corrected workflow just because someone says you should is crazy. You will only produce better work with GC if you understand it.

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017

Well it's my understanding that GC in Pro 2010 is just a check box that twiddles the node settings, that's point and click. I don't have Pro2010 and if there's more to it, like you have to have an understanding of Math to get it to work in Pro2010 then it's not much of a selling point.

I don't mean to be facetious but I get the impression that it's the latest toy and everyone who doesn't buy the toy is lame.....all of a sudden:)

I did not realize that my previous gamma-corrected image looks washed out on most of the monitors out there. It looks perfectly beautiful on my monitor. In the past I did notice that images that looked perfect on my monitor at home ended up looking totally washed out on my monitor at work. All the subtle contrast and color variations were gone. I'm surprised, however, that most of the monitors out there are more similar to my employer's monitors than to my own at home. I'm really at a loss as to how to "correct" my lights so that the GC'd image looks better on your monitors, but I will give it a shot. In the image above, the intensity of the IBL light was reduced to 45%. Everything else was the same. I'll be interested to learn if the GC'd image still looks washed out. Just let me know and I will adjust my lights again.

BTW, just so everyone knows, I'm using BB's VSS skin shader PR3 AO. The Gamma value was changed to 1.0 (GC off) in the left image and remained at 2.2 (GC on) in the right image. Both images were rendered in Poser Pro with render GC turned off. The render settings were as follows:

Raytrace bounces = 1
Irradiance Caching = 0
Pixel samples = 2
Min shading rate = 1.25

Here's another "before and after" test using BB's VSS skin shader PR3 AO. Again Gamma value was changed to 1.0 (GC off) in the left image and remained at 2.2 (GC on) in the right image. Both were rendered in Poser Pro with render GC turned off. IBL intensity was 45%.

Quote - Not a problem. I should have mentioned that both were rendered in Poser Pro 2010. VSS was not used. It sounds crazy, but I bought Pro strictly because of the one button Gamma Correction. I liked the way one could setup GC in Poser 8, but all those nodes in the Material Room were driving me daffy.

Kirwyn, your GC'd image looks beautiful on my monitor. Thanks for posting your test. I plan to upgrade to Poser Pro 2010 later this year. I'm just waiting a few more months before purchasing it to ensure that most the bugs have been shaken out.

BTW, my monitor is a 32-inch NEC MultiSync LCD 3090 WQXi. What kind of monitor do you have if I may ask?

Ok I've had another try to understand the positives.

First image V3, Very old texture, my standard light set up of one infinite light and one spot, shadows set to 75% on both.

Second Image same set up, a bit ice creamy and lacking the shadows but not particularly horrible either.

Is one better than the other, I'm open to suggestions, and don't forget I've only been trying GC for a few hours. Very quick to set up but not too sure of the benefits yet. Sorry if the images are a bit big but I wanted them to be clear and I'm not too up on posting images to the forums, took me a while to figure it out.

Cheers.

Quote - Well it's my understanding that GC in Pro 2010 is just a check box that twiddles the node settings, that's point and click.

It is pretty much point-and-click. That's what makes it worth having.

When Poser 8 loads an image map, it gets gamma-corrected (for accurate display on monitors) which means they become 'non-linear'. That's not ideal, because all the fancy math shaders that might be applied to the image are 'linear'. Mixing linear with non-linear makes things unpredictable.

When PoserPro2010 loads an image map, it gets gamma corrected (because Poser uses standard image codecs), but then gets un-corrected. In other words, it is re-linearised. Now everything you work with is completely linear, and it makes setting lighting and designing shaders much simpler and more predictable.

Quote - I don't mean to be facetious but I get the impression that it's the latest toy and everyone who doesn't buy the toy is lame.....all of a sudden:)

However did we do without it? All the fiddling around with lighting, node values and so on, with numerous test renders each time a change was made, is actually us, the users, getting round the gamma correction thing by trial and error.

It's only since the release of PP2010 that I've abandoned that old way of working so it's all a bit new to me too. Having tried to do GC in Poser 8 I decided it's way too much hassle.

When all's said and done, it's the end result that counts: if you're getting good results without GC, I wouldn't start worrying that you're in any way 'inadequate'.

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017

Nice examples hawarren

10:11 am Non GC looks better to me GC a bit to washed out. I'd probably prefer something in between.

10:18 am GC looks better.

Grimmley, the GC version is looks better to me mainly because the shadows around the eyes are too extreme on the Non GC one, almost like a mask.. The complexion on the GC one is perhaps a tad like pancake makeup, though not displeasing. You seem to be losing the wrinkles on the GC version though. Again, my taste would probably be for splitting the difference.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

hawarren, my monitor is a Gateway XHD 30" LCD. And I should mention that I'm a little disappointed in the GC in Poser Pro. More than likely I'm doing something wrong, but so far, I can't solve the problem . The results of GC using the node setup in Poser 8 versus using the one button GC in Poser Pro give me different results. Everything seems to be setup properly, but I get a slightly redder tone and reduced specularity in Poser Pro. I've tried it in PoserPro with the normal node setup and I've tried it with the GC nodes in place changing the 2.2 to 1.0. Either way, I get the same exact results: a render that is not a duplicate of the render in Poser 8 with the Gamma Correction node setup. Shouldn't it be? If math is about precise measurements, then I'm left scratching my head, wondering if someone missed a decimal point when configuring Poser Pro. Like I say, more than likely I'm missing something very simple, and hopefully I'll find the problem. But as it stands right now, I'm lost for an explanation of why there should be any difference, however slight, in the renders.

Trying not offend here - but probably will - sorry in advance.

All the renders of faces in this thread look like plactic people - useful for cartoon work but nothing anymore serious.

To GC or not to GC? does anyone have any renders of faces with good face maps and variable skin texures that use GC?

VSSPR3 with the skin template from BB.

Quote - Nice examples hawarren

10:11 am Non GC looks better to me GC a bit to washed out. I'd probably prefer something in between.

10:18 am GC looks better....

Lmckenzie, thanks for the feedback. In the image above, I reduced the front spotlight's intensity and turned off the rim light on Akisu's right. Again, left image is non-GC, right image is GC. Let me know if the GC image still looks washed out on your monitor. Thanks a bunch.

It seems a bit "less 3D" to me. I still like the image to the left. Maybe it's my new monitor as I have viewed it on my old monitor where I like the right image better as that monitor has a problem showing dynamics clearly. But it also a cheap monitor.

Quote - hawarren, my monitor is a Gateway XHD 30" LCD. And I should mention that I'm a little disappointed in the GC in Poser Pro. More than likely I'm doing something wrong, but so far, I can't solve the problem . The results of GC using the node setup in Poser 8 versus using the one button GC in Poser Pro give me different results. Everything seems to be setup properly, but I get a slightly redder tone and reduced specularity in Poser Pro. I've tried it in PoserPro with the normal node setup and I've tried it with the GC nodes in place changing the 2.2 to 1.0. Either way, I get the same exact results: a render that is not a duplicate of the render in Poser 8 with the Gamma Correction node setup. Shouldn't it be? If math is about precise measurements, then I'm left scratching my head, wondering if someone missed a decimal point when configuring Poser Pro. Like I say, more than likely I'm missing something very simple, and hopefully I'll find the problem. But as it stands right now, I'm lost for an explanation of why there should be any difference, however slight, in the renders.

Kirwyn, your monitor is really high-end. I bet you have a lot of fun rendering 3D scenes on your 30-inch wide screen monitor.

I hope BB or someone from SM can explain why there should be a difference in the renders. I do not have Poser Pro 2010 yet, and I've never been able to set up the shaders just right so that they would look good with render GC in Poser Pro. I've been experimenting with BB's VSS PR3 AO skin shader and I'm quite happy with it. What you're doing is way beyond my knowledge of how shader nodes work in the Material Room.

Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?
Couldn't it be set at 1.2 or 1.3 if less of the effect were desired?

Quote - Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?

Only if you need it for you monitor. I never heard it was a rule as that would f**kup my images.

Quote - Trying not offend here - but probably will - sorry in advance.

All the renders of faces in this thread look like plactic people - useful for cartoon work but nothing anymore serious.

To GC or not to GC? does anyone have any renders of faces with good face maps and variable skin texures that use GC?

Apple_UK, take a look at AtlantiStyle's products in the Market Place. His textures are very realistic, and his sculpting skills are exceptional. In my opinion he's a Michelangelo of digital art. Let me know if you like any of his products. I happen to own both Basile and Andre so I can probably do a test render of non-GC and GC images for you. Below is the link to his product page.

http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=483952

Quote - It seems a bit "less 3D" to me. I still like the image to the left. Maybe it's my new monitor as I have viewed it on my old monitor where I like the right image better as that monitor has a problem showing dynamics clearly. But it also a cheap monitor.

Thanks for the feedback Zaycrow. I will further reduce the intensity of the IBL light and crank up the spotlight just a bit to see if we can get the GC'd image to look more 3D. What kind of monitor is your old monitor? And your new one? (if you wouldn't mind)

Quote - > Quote - Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?

Only if you need it for you monitor. I never heard it was a rule as that would f**kup my images.

I'm referring to the GC settings in Poser, not my monitor.
Both my monitors are calibrated.

Quote - Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?
Couldn't it be set at 1.2 or 1.3 if less of the effect were desired?

Good question actually. There's no hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using Windows. We use the gamma values of 2.2 for Windows and 1.8 for MacIntosh because that's what most monitors have. I don't see why you can't experiment with other gamma values.

just a quick note to say cspear - that's not quite how it works. Poser 8 does not do anything to your image. the image itself is sRGB, because it is a digital image in that color space. and all monitors are sRGB. not all have specific defined sRGB space calibration, like, say, Adobe sRGB, but they're all sRGB. there are no linear color space monitors. and afaik, there are no sRGB space renderers. optics is hard enough with linear calculations, and it's much easier to just transform the result.

Wikipedia

Quote - LCDs, digital cameras, printers, and scanners all follow the sRGB standard. Devices which do not naturally follow sRGB (as was the case for older CRT monitors) include compensating circuitry or software so that, in the end, they also obey this standard. For this reason, one can generally assume, in the absence of embedded profiles or any other information, that any 8-bit-per-channel image file or any 8-bit-per-channel image API or device interface can be treated as being in the sRGB color space.

Quote - > Quote - Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?

Couldn't it be set at 1.2 or 1.3 if less of the effect were desired?

Good question actually. There's no hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using Windows. We use the gamma values of 2.2 for Windows and 1.8 for MacIntosh because that's what most monitors have. I don't see why you can't experiment with other gamma values.

Here's why.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - Thanks for the feedback Zaycrow. I will further reduce the intensity of the IBL light and crank up the spotlight just a bit to see if we can get the GC'd image to look more 3D. What kind of monitor is your old monitor? And your new one? (if you wouldn't mind)

Well, that's the problem - if you crank up the CG my new monitor will show it as too much gamma control. My old monitor see it ok, but that's the problem with LCD's. At work we still use CRT screens and those old things still show the CG images here as too much gamma corrections.
My old monitor is a LG 19". My new monitors are Phillips Brilliance 20" 200W and Samsung 30" 305T plus.

hawarren: ty for the link - exceptional quality work- yes I like

Quote - There's that "see" again.
Mathematically correct is not something that can be visually assessed.

I always wondered why the first question that's usually asked of people looking for help in improving their renders in this forum was "Did you GC it?"

I always wondered, if you can't tell and have to ask, how can it possibly matter?

If it matters to you, great.
But I guarantee that almost every single person who posts a render here or in the critique forum asking for help wants to improve the appearance of that render.

I have yet to see anything here entitled "Please help me make my render more mathematically correct."

Possibly some of those who post in threads containing renders of figures floating in space in T-pose are wanting that sort of correction. Good for them.

But I've yet to be paid for getting a naked figure in t-pose mathematically correct.

So I guess I should rephrase my original question: "What's the big deal with gamma correction in the context of how my final render will appear?"

Quote - So I guess I should rephrase my original question: "What's the big deal with gamma correction in the context of how my final render will appear?"

There are a number of factors to consider when creating a good image.

Colour processing is one such factor. It is the base factor, really. Poser uses linear colour information to process colours. If you want to Poser to process the colour correctly, then give it linear data.
Lighting is tied in with that.

I'm not sure how else to say it.

All the clever rhetoric about how everyone's monitor is calibrated differently and how great images were produced prior to knowing about Poser's need for linear data is irrelevant to that fact. Granted that the information might have been more gently presented, but one cannot discount the fact that Poser uses linear data to process colours.

Do with that information what you will. I'm not saying anything about whether your image quality will suffer from not using GC... I'm merely stating a bald fact: Poser uses linear data to process colours.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - If you want to Poser to process the colour correctly, then give it linear data.

But why should I care whether the colour is processed correctly?

If it appears correct, what has its actual correctness got to do with anything?

We have people using lights without shadows. How does that fit into correctness? It doesn't. It's an attempt to give the appearance of correctness.

We have figures with gross anatomical flaws and faulty joints. We have skins and flesh that doesn't react to surface collision with other objects. We have muscles that don't flex when we change figure poses. Spines with 2 joints. And let's not even talk about hair.

None of those things is even close to correct. Wherefore the obsession with this one other thing?

"But why should I care whether the colour is processed correctly?

If it appears correct, what has its actual correctness got to do with anything?"

So, when you take your camera outside and take a picture on a bright day with indoor flash settings, I guess that doesn't matter either?

No, you're right. It doesn't matter.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - "But why should I care whether the colour is processed correctly?

If it appears correct, what has its actual correctness got to do with anything?"

So, when you take your camera outside and take a picture on a bright day with indoor flash settings, I guess that doesn't matter either?

No, you're right. It doesn't matter.

Not if you get the effect you want, no. It does not matter.

And if you screw up and forget to adjust your white balance, (and I bet every digital photographer has at some point) and do not get the effect you want, it's trivial, trivial to fix after the fact.

Digital photographs are GC'd and almost all of them are trash. None of them is a perfectly accurate reflection of reality.

I shoot multiple exposures to merge into HDRI's. When I process them into PNG's, who knows what combination of gamma, luminance, saturation, light/dark point settings I'm going to use for any given image. Which of the many possibilities is correct?

And should I be hanged for shooting in monotone?

It's pretty clear to me you don't wish to use gamma-correction, Inklaire, or have Poser process colours correctly. And white balance settings on your digital camera are a means to an artistic end to you. Anything else is meaningless to you.

That's fine. For you.

You asked a question, and I answered it. What was your objective in asking the question in the first place? to discredit gamma-correction as a science? Or to justify your choice not to use the information given to you? If you don't wish to use information found on these forums, it doesn't make that information of any less value to those that do use it.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

hawarren: "Let me know if the GC image still looks washed out on your monitor. "

Yes, that's better - to MY eyes and on MY ancient Viewsonic CRT which may have the gamma of an IBM 3270 terminal for all I know :-)

"Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2"

Well apparently so, if you want it to be correct. To me, it's a control like any other. If backing it off make the image look better to me then that's what I do. I think that I understand the physically correct philosophy. I've been fascinated with science and technology my whole life, but art and science, like religion and science address different questions or the same question from entirely different points of view. Each is valid in their own realm but when they overlap it can get messy.

Let us agree that it [GC] is correct* .* Let us also agree that what is correct* *is not going to be universally perceived as the best - because of variations in monitors, eyesight and Lord knows what other physical and psychological factors any more than N mg/kg of a drug is going to work for everyone, or everyone is going to agree on which one of the Bush twins is hotter - it's Laura - don't argue with me.

So the GC proponents say 'well maybe', while channeling Galileo and muttering 'and yet it is correct.' Fine, message received and noted for reference. The skeptics will look and say 'you're selling snake oil.' Fine, do what pleases you. We might aw well be arguing art vs porn at this point, though the examples would be a lot more entertaining.

Someone correct my aging memory. Was there this much kvetching over GI/IDL? If there was, I don't remember it. That was a new feature to many people and it way promoted by some of the same folks evangelizing GC, but it seemed to go down a lot smoother. If so, why? Discuss among yourselves.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Bagginsbill is going to have a cow when he get's back and reads all this. :-)

Well, I did a lot of renders last night and today with all kind of settings: GC, exponential tonemapping, HSV exponential tonemapping, GC in the shaders and so on and I read the whole wikipage about Gamma correction, both the english and the dutch (which have some contradiction BTW), and there are some pros and cons for using gamma correction:
Gamma correction makes better shadows and highlights and if you want realism in your render that's a good thing. Poserpro GC makes it very easy to use it.
But, I use a lot of dynamic hair and I have to change all the shaders because they are much too red and too bright for using GC. Because they use procedural shading,and GC only works on texturemaps you get very different results than without GC.
All the textures of clothes and props I bought are optimised for non-GC renders so I have change all the shaders before I get the same result with GC.
I have to change all the lightsets I made because they were not intended for using GC.
That's probably the reason why I preferred tonemapping over Gamma correction.
So yes, gamma correction is an improvement, but you'll have a lot of work to do before your renders look the way you like it.
We have a VSS-prop for skins and there's also one for transmapped hair, it would be nice if I could have one for dynamic hair and clothing

best regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Quote - It's pretty clear to me you don't wish to use gamma-correction, Inklaire, or have Poser process colours correctly. And white balance settings on your digital camera are a means to an artistic end to you. Anything else is meaningless to you.

That's fine. For you.

You asked a question, and I answered it. What was your objective in asking the question in the first place? to discredit gamma-correction as a science? Or to justify your choice not to use the information given to you? If you don't wish to use information found on these forums, it doesn't make that information of any less value to those that do use it.

I wanted the point of GC to be explained to me so that I would feel justified in spending the time it takes to use it.

I'm disappointed that that hasn't happened, and that instead I've been persuaded that, not only is it not worth the time, but that I should probably be asking SM for a refund. So, yes, I'm a bit frustrated.

Well, I did keep the faith that in time someone would say something that would help me see the light, as it were, for a little too long.

Poser is clearly not the right software for me. Not a real loss, thankfully. Content works in other apps.

Quote - Bagginsbill is going to have a cow when he get's back and reads all this. :-)

No, I think he will shake his head sadly, and write another valuable Tutorial.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

Quote - But why should I care whether the colour is processed correctly?

first of all, most of us can tell. it's, imho, glaringly obvious in most works, including my own older heavily processed, filtered and even painted works. we begin with the question to verify.

second of all, it's like any trouble-shooting. you begin with checking if people have the right settings. answers change based on how they respond.

Quote - If it appears correct, what has its actual correctness got to do with anything?

this question makes no sense. if it appeared correct, even just to them, they wouldn't ask for help improving it.

Quote - We have people using lights without shadows. How does that fit into correctness? It doesn't.It's an attempt to give the appearance of correctness.

which is why most of the time, even before "did you use GC," we ask whether they have shadows turned on. even if it looks like they're using lights with no shadows, people ask and check.

and since lots of people use lights with no shadows to try to accomplish the same thing GC does (that's not a guess, i've literally been told that), that's yet another example of how you need to change your lighting to stop compensating.

Quote - We have figures with gross anatomical flaws and faulty joints. We have skins and flesh that doesn't react to surface collision with other objects. We have muscles that don't flex when we change figure poses. Spines with 2 joints. And let's not even talk about hair.

None of those things is even close to correct. Wherefore the obsession with this one other thing?

it's not an obsession. it's simply addressing one of the many problems we can. just like phantom3d and odf are addressing the problems they can with their figures. just like most of us using linear workflow use bagginsbill's fresnel equations. i use Matmatic now (for lots of reasons), and i can generate lots of different materials quickly and easily. i incorporate features like conservation of energy, accurate fresnel equations, and linear workflow automatically for all of my materials. i rarely think about them at all.

light is the common denominator in visual art. no matter what genre, people expect some connection to how light works in real life. not using linear workflow is like applying a random, extreme curve filter to all of your work.
at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. not just according to anyone in this thread, but people in general. bagginsbill is a "guru" for the very simple reason that when he posts his results, people like them. they want to do the same thing. they pay attention to what he says only based on his results and of those of us that use his advice, tools, materials, etc.

some people want to get as far as they can with realism in Poser, and i think most are less satisfied with lighting and materials than figures, clothes and props.

there are no nodes that can work correctly with sRGB input. there's no way to tell someone the correct (or as correct as possible) way to make anything without linear workflow. what bagginsbill knows is physical accuracy, and that's the basis for advice he gives. it's fine to ignore his advice, but those that follow it make their choice based on renders, not hype.

those of us that use linear workflow do so because it solves a problem for us, and solves it efficiently. many of us can see a clear difference. if you personally can't see the difference, or don't want to learn to work with it, don't. everyone posting to this thread who uses linear workflow is saying not to use it if you don't want to. what response are you looking for? that we shouldn't use it? that we have no reason to do so? we do. we found that it improved our work. as someone who heavily postworks, i found it worlds better to have a more realistic base than one where all of the shading is just plain wrong.

please stop making strawman arguments like "you can have realistic results without GC," which we acknowledged from the start, "if you like how uncorrected workflow looks, why change it?" which we never suggested, and "this is against artistic license, stylistic extremes and postwork," which none of us has said and many of us use.

instead of just saying there's no clear explanation, could you say what's wrong with any of the explanations so far? just to reiterate.

all digital images that don't explicitly use another color space and all monitors, digital cameras, cell phones, etc. (which means the colors displayed in your color picker) work in sRGB space.
all renderers work linearly.
if you don't translate input to linear form, the calculations renders make are incorrect.
if you don't translate the rendered result to sRGB, the monitor can't display those calculations correctly.

this is not a simple case of lighter/darker or more/less saturated. all of the shading is off, and both highlights, shadows and everything in between are incorrect in different ways. highlights are too bright, shadows are too dark, and the shading between them doesn't progress properly.

GC equations are simplified approximations that will give you visibly lightened shadows compared to using sRGB equations. they are themselves not quite correct. i actually saved bagginsbill's tests, and he once gave me permission to repost them at another forum, so i think i can repost them without totally stepping on his toes if people are interested. i can't find them to link to.

GC in Poser Pro affects all color input. that includes colors for procedural textures. bagginsbill rarely uses textures, and pretty much only does so on human figures. if you notice, his most recent material posts don't include GC because he's using PP 2010. i'm pretty sure that you actually have to be careful about GC and intensity maps that you want to leave as is.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?

Couldn't it be set at 1.2 or 1.3 if less of the effect were desired?

Good question actually. There's no hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using Windows. We use the gamma values of 2.2 for Windows and 1.8 for MacIntosh because that's what most monitors have. I don't see why you can't experiment with other gamma values.

Here's why.

Thanks for the valuable wiki page on gamma correction. After reading this page and a few more on the web, I've come up with the following simplistic understanding of gamma correction. Please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.

Computer monitors do not display materials linearly. If the input luminance is 0.5 and a monitor's gamma is 2.2, then the output luminance is not 0.5 but 0.5 to the power of 2.2, which is 0.2176. Therefore, for an image whose luminance is 0.5 to appear with correct brightness on a monitor that has a gamma of 2.2, the brightness of this image must be raised to the power of 1/2.2 so that the output brightness produced by the monitor is correctly set at 0.5. When a JPEG is saved on a monitor that has a gamma of 2.2, the JPEG algorithm encodes the file with the appropriate gamma correction by raising the image's brightness to the power of 1/2.2 (most Windows monitors). On a MacIntosh, however, the file will be encoded with a gamma of ~1/1.8.

A JPEG saved on a MacIntosh looks darker on Windows because it is decoded with a gamma of 2.2 instead of 1.8. The inverse is true when a JPEG saved on Windows is dipslayed on a MacIntosh. The image will end up looking brighter than it should.

If we do not know exactly where a JPEG comes from, we can only guess that the gamma value applied to the image must have been 2.2. It could have been anywhere between 1.8 and 2.3.

In such cases we need to experiment with different gamma values. Am I somewhat correct? Please do not hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.

Grimmley, The second image looks better on my monitor.

So I've been back for two days and haven't commented. I actually lay in bed till 3 AM this morning, disturbed by what I'd read here. Yes, I've had a cow.

What really troubles me, more than the refusals to simply read what has been presented in the past to the tune of THOUSANDS of posts about GC, is the mis-representations of things I've said. I never said GC is some sort of cure all nor that you can only produce crap without it.

I have said there is a lot of art that shows the symptoms of not having GC or any other attempt to compensate for the sRGB color space we all see with, because we all deal with digital images and we all use digital devices that EXPECT sRGB images, regardless of whether they are photos or renders.

But more than all that, what really upsets me is the mischaractarization of postings in other threads, arguments about communication style, and the total bonehead arguments about t-poses and other dumb stuff. Seriously? You want me to spend 100 hours making "art" to demonstrate a simple skin lighting concept, comparing the difference between a couple settings? Pay me.

And that time I said "try VSS, then come back" was not the way it was represented here. It was not at all a case of me saying "use GC first or I won't talk to you". The poster needed help to make skin more realistic. I have written thousands of hours on that subject and posted over 1000 images about it and provided free software and shaders to make it a 5 second operation to fix skin. I asked the poster in that case to give VSS a try, and then if that didn't fix all his problems and completely blow him away, then he should come back and I'd give more specific help around the specific lighting and textures he was using. No way was that rude. And he was blown away and did not need more help, as far as I recall.

You who like to mispresent how I talk and then complain about it really irk me. The mods here have repeatedly stated that it is inappropriate to demand a specific communication style from others, particularly when you're complaining about how somebody is helping someone.

Bah.

People - do searches. Search for the word "crap", posts by me. Yes I use the word. No, I was not rude.

I also really am pissed about claims that I promote GC because I'm affiliated in some way with SM and this helps them.

That is the stupidest insulting part of this discussion.

Go back and read my posts for 5 years, trying to figure out why skin doesn't look right in Poser. Go read what I learned when GC came out. At that time, I was a user, nothing more. I did not work for SM.

Go read my astonishment at the difference it made when Poser Pro came out.

Then go read how I developed hundreds of ways to do it WITHOUT BUYING ANY NEW VERSIONS OF POSER.

Are you people so stupid? Did you think that SM was happy that I posted how to get GC done WITHOUT buying Poser Pro over and over? Do understand the ramifications of that? How could I be accused of some sort of nefarious "evangelism" when what I was teaching actually hurt SM's sales?!?

Perhaps it isn't clear, so I'll spell it out for you insulting bastards.

I published how to avoid giving SM more money for Pro features by using Poser 5, 6, and 7 materials to do the same thing.

I'm not asking you to buy anything or use anything. I'm simply sharing what I know. Yes there is always more than one way to get something done. And some of those ways are my favorites, and I understand them really well, and I talk about them, because they are the fastest easiest ways to get lights to behave as you'd expect, instead of getting stuff you don't want.

Double bah!

I'm going to a party now.

Go read this. I thought I already explained everything.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2757170

Note in the opening statement I said:

"You need to use gamma correction. I don't care if it's in your postwork, or you use Poser Pro, or you use gamma correcting shaders, or you use a GC lens. Take your pick."

Yes, it's my opinion you need to deal with it, but if Photoshop levels is your choice, that's fine. I never said you had to use Poser Pro or GC shaders. However, there are reasons to do it in-render, although such reasons do not apply to every situation. To use an analogy, if I suggest you should try limes in your cocktails, doesn't mean I reject lemons, nor does it mean I demand limes in everything you eat or drink. You guys need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Go look at the images in the linked thread. If you say you can't tell the difference, you're a liar.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

GC does not apply only to texture-based shaders. It applies to all colors except black and white, whether they are procedural or image based.

In particular any shader involving incomplete (Fresnel) reflections will look very wrong without GC in shader or renderer.

Quote - > Quote - Thanks for the feedback Zaycrow. I will further reduce the intensity of the IBL light and crank up the spotlight just a bit to see if we can get the GC'd image to look more 3D. What kind of monitor is your old monitor? And your new one? (if you wouldn't mind)

Well, that's the problem - if you crank up the CG my new monitor will show it as too much gamma control. My old monitor see it ok, but that's the problem with LCD's. At work we still use CRT screens and those old things still show the CG images here as too much gamma corrections.
My old monitor is a LG 19". My new monitors are Phillips Brilliance 20" 200W and Samsung 30" 305T plus.

Ah, the good old CRTs. I remember having clung to my Sony CRT for as long as I could when everyone else began to have LCDs because the Sony CRT monitors displayed colors much more accurately than the early LCDs.

This is the other thread you should read.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2762503

Read the opening post for WHY - It's quite clear. Copied below with emphasis.

=====

I know, I'm becoming an ass about this. But I'm really tired of seeing linear-encoded renders.

None of us has a display device encoded in linear color space. We all have monitors and printers that show images correctly if they are in sRGB color space.

Linear color space is similar to sRGB color space. It is not the same.

Inches are similar to centimeters, too, but you can't just replace one with another.

In sRGB color space, the value .5 is not 50% as bright as 1. It is only 21.7 % as bright. Please stop posting renders for devices nobody owns. Or, **when you post such images, apologize to the viewer for making them look at something you could easily correct, but you refuse to.
**
Thank you.

When you refer to MAC's, keep in mind that the standard is just now changing to accommendate a Gc=2.2. Earlier MAC OS's still do exhibit a Gc=1.8. Brighter screens, better sales. Good marketing strategy.

Also keep in mind, digital cameras, scanners, printers and the internet have a Gc=2.2 standard globally. But it is not an ironclad rule that your renders must rigidly adhere to that standard. As long as you have a measure of control over your midtone range, you can tweak the settings to suite your needs within your working environment. If the image is going to be displayed globally, then you may want to reconsider how it is rendered to conform to standards.

Welcome back, BB. Hope you had a nice vacation.

Quote - hawarren: "Let me know if the GC image still looks washed out on your monitor. "

Yes, that's better - to MY eyes and on MY ancient Viewsonic CRT which may have the gamma of an IBM 3270 terminal for all I know :-)

Thanks for the feedback lmckenzie. A Viewsonic CRT??? COOL !!! I too used to have a Viewsonic CRT in my youth, although my favorite was still my dear old Sony CRT.

Quote - > Quote - It's pretty clear to me you don't wish to use gamma-correction, Inklaire, or have Poser process colours correctly. And white balance settings on your digital camera are a means to an artistic end to you. Anything else is meaningless to you.

That's fine. For you.

You asked a question, and I answered it. What was your objective in asking the question in the first place? to discredit gamma-correction as a science? Or to justify your choice not to use the information given to you? If you don't wish to use information found on these forums, it doesn't make that information of any less value to those that do use it.

I wanted the point of GC to be explained to me so that I would feel justified in spending the time it takes to use it.

I'm disappointed that that hasn't happened, and that instead I've been persuaded that, not only is it not worth the time, but that I should probably be asking SM for a refund. So, yes, I'm a bit frustrated.

Well, I did keep the faith that in time someone would say something that would help me see the light, as it were, for a little too long.

Poser is clearly not the right software for me. Not a real loss, thankfully. Content works in other apps.

Huh?

I'm not sure what you are looking for. If you need more justification for doing things correctly than what's been presented on this thread, I don't believe there IS help for you. The arguments against linearising your colours (including shades of grey) before processing have not even addressed the question, and I really think you are reading those statements and find them more compelling. What about colour accuracy do you find trivial? I just don't get it.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - hawarren: ty for the link - exceptional quality work- yes I like

Apple_UK. Above are before and after images of Basile. Left image is non-GC, right image is GC. Bagginsbill's VSS skin shader was not used. I simply turned on the GC option in the render settings.

I hope you can see on your monitor that the GC image has more clarity and the yellow bloom is gone. Let me know if the GC image looks washed out on your monitor. I will adjust the lights for you.

Please note that above images are simply test renders at very low resolution. They certainly do not represent the true beauty of Basile's textures when rendered in high res by a talented artist such as Atlantistyle (my apologies to AtlantiStyle for posting these crude images of his masterpiece).

hawarren - strong case for GC - it has managed to turn a plastic person into something very usable,

Can you tell me where do I get the shaders for GC and VSS fom please?

If you are using PoserPro (any version), Apple_UK, then GC is inbuilt in the programme - it's a tickbox and a number setting.
If not, it's a bit more complex. And I really think this is where people are having issues: GC is NOT a simple solution, despite Bantha's wacro.
I'd be happy to hand hold you to as far as I've been able to go with this... it's a bit time-consuming, but well worth it in the end, from a colour-accuracy standpoint, that is.

VSS is a shader-distribution tool developed by BagginsBill for complex figures. He has included skin shaders in the tool to illustrate its use. A link to the most recent one (along with the tool) can be found in BB's signature tag.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

RobynsVeil - One nurse to another - Your offer is kind. I have just DL the two and will play with them but I think I shall be forced to seek your hand out later :)

I'm happy to help you, Apple_UK - as much as I can. There are still a few grey areas in my mind about getting things like Reflection and Refraction to play nicely with GC (and conservation of energy, another cool light concept to get the head around), but the basic stuff I feel confident I'm pretty clear on.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

Quote - When a JPEG is saved on a monitor that has a gamma of 2.2, the JPEG algorithm encodes the file with the appropriate gamma correction by raising the image's brightness to the power of 1/2.2 (most Windows monitors). On a MacIntosh, however, the file will be encoded with a gamma of ~1/1.8.

A JPEG saved on a MacIntosh looks darker on Windows because it is decoded with a gamma of 2.2 instead of 1.8. The inverse is true when a JPEG saved on Windows is dipslayed on a MacIntosh. The image will end up looking brighter than it should.

If we do not know exactly where a JPEG comes from, we can only guess that the gamma value applied to the image must have been 2.2. It could have been anywhere between 1.8 and 2.3.

In such cases we need to experiment with different gamma values. Am I somewhat correct? Please do not hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.

not hesitating to correct you ;D.

Wikipedia

Quote - Many JPEG files embed an ICC color profile (color space). Commonly used color profiles include sRGB and Adobe RGB. Because these color spaces use a non-linear transformation, the dynamic range of an 8-bit JPEG file is about 11 stops. However, many applications are not able to deal with JPEG color profiles and simply ignore them.

afaik, Poser does not support reading color profiles. that's not what makes you need to linearize your texture. if the images are created by a digital camera or scanner, those devices use sRGB space. if you paint a texture, you see it through an sRGB device, so in that sense, the monitor will affect your image. but not in the sense you seem to mean.

it will just mean that when you choose a color that looks right to you, it looks right to you on your monitor. you could create linear versions of your images without Poser (though i don't know how one would do it mathematically in Photoshop, and i'd hate doing it by eyeballing it myself). conversely, if you use the right color space within Photoshop, you could probably set it up so that you create linear works that look like they're sRGB when you're editing them in Photoshop. you could also work in other color spaces, like CMYK or Pantone colors. it makes no difference to the JPEG itself.

the issue is more that if it looks right on your screen, the renderer can't work with it.

in my experience, the difference between Mac and PC was easier to handle in post than the difference between GC equations and sRGB equations. or actually, pretty much ignore and just use the same principles of making images that work in general on the web. just like the sRGB printers and other digital devices do, in my expeience it's best to work to the specification. at least for the raw render.

Quote - So I've been back for two days and haven't commented...

This immediately came to mind... :lol:

www.youtube.com/watch

Good to see you back, BB!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

Jump in anytime, BB... I'm sort-of over this, now.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

This is my first venture with GC and VSS but don't know if i have used them properly - I shall rely on Robyns guidance. So far though it seems a case of horses for courses. I am best pleased with No.6 because it played down a flaw in the face map - right nostril not properly aligned. However, the lighting effect has been reduced.

@Apple_UK: Are you using PoserPro or PoserPro 2010 (forgive me if you indeed mentioned it elsewhere and I have forgotten)? The VSS skin shader template has builtin Gc nodes and will need to be adjusted accordingly if using Poser Pro series. You would like no Gc in your shaders, so the value must be reset to 1 in 5 separate zones. I am detecting overbrightness in the eye whites in the Gc renders, indicating to me that there is too much correction being applied.

hborre: P8 and you're right about the eyes, in all the pics I think. I have rather neglected understanding eye shading I'm afraid. I must do something about that. I shall also do something about that right nostril.

Okay, P8 will require that material Gc be active and set to 2.2 (if using PC). Another user did notice a slight brightness in the eye whites and made an adjustment to a node value there. I need to revisit that shader group to determine which node needs to be changed.

Here we go. There are 2 nodes circled above: the Diffuse node and a math node which actually controls gamma correction for the eyewhites. Decreasing the Diffuse Node value will make the whites less brighter but we impart a greyish cast to them. Maybe something you don't want. My recommendation is to simply adjust the gamma node to 1 and re-render the image. Gamma correction is brightening the texture excessively. One should restore the balance.

Just throwing an idea in here - that looks like the Pr2 eye shader of BB's? - but I wonder if doing a bit of conservation of energy might help, maybe? Just a thought.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

It's actually the PR3, Robyn. Very little was changed for that particular zone in the VSS. The gamma misbehaves because it is dealing with white texture, over-saturating it. Reducing the gamma value brings it back to normalcy. Perhaps applying some change to Gc (1.5 - 1.8) and adjusting the Diffuse may bring better, pleasing results.

Thanks for that, HBorre. Just running some GC and lights tests for JoePublic... might try to do a bit of CoE on that afterwards to see if it makes a difference, unless BB comes in with a better idea. :biggrin:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]

Metaphor of Chooks

It will be interesting if you come up with something a little bit more intuitive. I don't recall seeing this effect in PoserPro or PP 2010, so I will pay closer attention next time I render.

Quote - > Quote - Interesting. Are we trying to emulate the camera lens, or human vision? Would they be the same?

You cant Emulate human vision... its impossible.

Actually so called
photorealistic 3Drenderers are just Emulation what the scene would look like if a professional photographer took a picture and handed it to you
if you use a truly "highend"
render engine that used a "physicaly correct" workflow you can recognize this right away in your settings ( see pic)
but these of course are way more $$Expensive$$$ than poser

I think that is an interesting question that deserves a more accurate answer. Much of The Renaissance was about artists recreating what they actually saw on paper and canvas rather than caricatured and stereotypical shapes previous generations used.

Take a look a Durer's perspective device, the second image down. You can see how artists in the days of the old masters were taught perspective and foreshortening. This method is still used to teach art students today, though using clear plexiglass plates rather than a bulky table.

Actually, take a look at some old master paintings and how good they were at capturing realistic behaving light and shadow. They had many of the techniques of photorealism down centuries before photography was invented! In fact, to this day, photography owes more to painting (which is also the style of much 3D art) than vice versa.

If you are interested, take a look at this fascinating -certainly in the context of this discussion- article from a few years ago, the "White's Illusion" that plagues the human brain can also occur in "any system that tries to emulate human vision." (quote from the article, emphasis mine)

In fact the camera is a machine that emulates human vision.

But for the original question, no a camera and human vision are not the same. 3D software imitates a real world lens with many of the same controls, but not the human eye. Generally speaking artists try to capture a mix of what they see and imagine on their medium, and of course there are extremes in either direction.

Quote -
If you are interested, take a look at this fascinating -certainly in the context of this discussion- article from a few years ago, the "White's Illusion" that plagues the human brain can also occur in "any system that tries to emulate human vision." (quote from the article, emphasis mine)

So what does it say about me that "White's Illusion" looks like two equally grey boxes to me. I have to really do some concentrating to get the one on the left to look darker.

Quote -

Quote - hawarren: ty for the link - exceptional quality work- yes I like

Apple_UK. Above are before and after images of Basile. Left image is non-GC, right image is GC. Bagginsbill's VSS skin shader was not used. I simply turned on the GC option in the render settings.

I hope you can see on your monitor that the GC image has more clarity and the yellow bloom is gone. Let me know if the GC image looks washed out on your monitor. I will adjust the lights for you.

Please note that above images are simply test renders at very low resolution. They certainly do not represent the true beauty of Basile's textures when rendered in high res by a talented artist such as Atlantistyle (my apologies to AtlantiStyle for posting these crude images of his masterpiece).

I agree that the yellow bloom is gone, but so it the contrast and the detail, all gone because of the use of CG. The yellow bloom is annoying..... but so is the lack of contrast and detail.

I really don't care if BB or anyone else is getting a fit or not, I simply don't use CG on each image anymore. I'm sick of looking at images that lack any detail and contrast. If I've got problems with too dark areas or blooms, I'll adjust light settings and use Tone Mapping in P8, instead of using CG and settling for images that may be brighter but lack all the rest.

I'm not a pro...... since CG is a pro features I don't seem to be needing it, according to SM.

As for the threads with images BB has pointed out, of course the images show benefit from CG. Imo, most of them are lighted so badly, that any postwork done on them will make tons of difference. Those images do not support the case at all, the only thing they may show is that badly done images may benefit from CG. If you use Cg on a well done image, you will get very different results, which will show that using CG on every image may not be such an idea. I use CG, but not just bluntly on everything.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Oh dear.

This thread has become so full of confusion, misinformation, side issues and misinterpretations that the point of the original question - "What's the big deal with gamma correction?" - has been lost.

This article - not about a 3D app - may help you find the answer. Follow the links in the article, there's some fascinating stuff in there.

Here's a quote from the end of the article:

"On one hand, we could implement a fully linear workflow that would.... deal with bitmap data in a more physically correct manner and deliver better results... On the other hand, there is a deeply ingrained, decades-old workflow that almost everyone in the industry is used to..."

Sounds familiar!

Folks, awareness of linearized workflows is fairly new. They are only just being enabled in the 'Big' 3D apps. It's all a bit new and takes getting used to. You don't have to adopt such a workflow. It's optional. But it is, in my opinion, better, and well worth negotiating the learning curve that goes with it.

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017

Quote - > Quote -

If you are interested, take a look at this fascinating -certainly in the context of this discussion- article from a few years ago, the "White's Illusion" that plagues the human brain can also occur in "any system that tries to emulate human vision." (quote from the article, emphasis mine)

So what does it say about me that "White's Illusion" looks like two equally grey boxes to me. I have to really do some concentrating to get the one on the left to look darker.

The first paragraph says "Like most people, you should see one block of grey as darker than the other," it just means you're not like most people, as far as your vision goes, your vision is more accurate the the physical world than most people's. Everybody is different one way or another, and even people with very "correct" vision will sense colors slightly differently from each other.

> Quote - > Quote - > > If you are interested, [take a look at this fascinating -certainly in the context of this discussion- article from a few years ago](http://www.imveurope.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=51), the "White's Illusion" that plagues the human brain can also occur in "any system that tries to **emulate human vision**." (quote from the article, emphasis mine) > > > > So what does it say about me that "White's Illusion" looks like two equally grey boxes to me. I have to really do some concentrating to get the one on the left to look darker.

Too late to edit my post, but in fact, the boxes on the right should be darker, at least if you see how I do.

I made my own White's illusion. It's the same as in the article, only squeezed down. Squeezing the boxes down exaggerates the effect (see if they still look the same to you), and stretching them bigger will decrease the effect of the illusion.

I just want to thank inklair for raising an issue I never given any thought to

You know, things were so much simpler before computers. I get a photo printed, hand the print to you, and I could expect that the image on the print didn't change during the exchange.

A simple way for me to understand GC and the need for it is with basic math. A pixel in an image is represented by three colors: red, green, and blue. Each color has a value between 0 ( black ) and 255 ( full brightness ) when represented using 8 bits/pixel. The problem is that CRT monitors didn't display the values linearly. If you had a red pixel with a value of 100 and another with a value of 200, you would expect the latter to be twice as bright as the former. This is not the case and while the extremes display close to linear, the midtones display dimmer. GC adjusts the colors, not by brightening the entire image, but by adjusting the different tones by the amount necessary to make them display linearly. As I understand it, LCD monitors do not suffer the same problem but are built to emulate it since everything out already accounts for it.

In a linear workflow, the texture maps need to be uncorrected because if you do a final correction during the render, those images will have been corrected twice giving it a washed out appearance.

As for my own renders, I use GC and also try to restrict myself to three lights in a scene.

"if you do a final correction during the render, those images will have been corrected twice giving it a washed out appearance."

I'm thinking that is my problem. I'm probably using textures that have been made with corrected texture maps. although saying that, vue 8.5 uses GC and the same scene with GC in vue looks richer and clearer then the poser render with GC of the same thing.
Of course the lighting is the difference I suppose.
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

I suppose in poser the trick is going to be recognizing that washed out look and if you get it in a render, try turning GC off.
Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month. Oh, and it's free!

I think I found out what's "wrong" with Poserpro gamma correction and dynamic hair. Again I did some experiments today and I came to this conclusion (Please, correct me if I'm wrong because I think this isn't a simple problem): Gamma correction is meant to work with texture maps, to make the renderer work with lineair gamma decoded maps, and if I'm right it actually lowers the midtones of a texturemap before it's send to the renderer, and the renderer boost the midtones of the final picture to get it properly gamma corrected.
But dynamic hair doesn't use texturemaps, but a hair-lighting node. So in fact the gamma correction isn't needed for a hair node, and you have to decode (lower the midtones of) the hair-node if your using poserpro GC.
This can be done the same way as BB does for his VSS-skinshader, by plugging in a power colormath node with a single add mathnode of 2.2 to value2, after the hair node.
You also have to reduce the translucency value, which a lot of dynamic hair shaders use.
If this is not clear, I can make a screenshot.

Best regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Quote - You know, things were so much simpler before computers. I get a photo printed, hand the print to you, and I could expect that the image on the print didn't change during the exchange.

A simple way for me to understand GC and the need for it is with basic math. A pixel in an image is represented by three colors: red, green, and blue. Each color has a value between 0 ( black ) and 255 ( full brightness ) when represented using 8 bits/pixel. The problem is that CRT monitors didn't display the values linearly. If you had a red pixel with a value of 100 and another with a value of 200, you would expect the latter to be twice as bright as the former. This is not the case and while the extremes display close to linear, the midtones display dimmer. GC adjusts the colors, not by brightening the entire image, but by adjusting the different tones by the amount necessary to make them display linearly. As I understand it, LCD monitors do not suffer the same problem but are built to emulate it since everything out already accounts for it.

In a linear workflow, the texture maps need to be uncorrected because if you do a final correction during the render, those images will have been corrected twice giving it a washed out appearance.

did you read any of my posts at all? i ask because i quoted the Wikipedia entry directly dealing with this.

no, CRTs do not natively support the sRGB spec. they are however altered to support it. LCDs do natively support it. as do cameras and scanners. digital images never get "corrected," they are created in sRGB color space to begin with by either cameras or scanners or you (by way of image creation software). they need to be linearized because the renderer can't make it's calculations properly with non-linear input. it wouldn't matter if they used a totally different color space than sRGB. they would still need to be linearized before the renderer made its calculations. it has nothing to do with the final correction. the final correction is an issue only if you are viewing them on a screen or printing them on a printer calibrated to sRGB space.

you can think of it as two entirely separate procedures.

the renderer speaks one language. you need to make sure that everything it gets is in that language. if you know what language something is in, you can translate it to the renderer's language. digital images and colors that display on our monitors are in sRGB space, and we use linearization equations to translate them into the renderer's language.

your monitor speaks a second language. you need to make sure everything it gets is in that language. if you know what language you're giving it, you can translate that. if you just get a digital image, hey, it doesn't need translation. it's already in the right language. if you give it something in linear space, like your renderer's final output (after all calculations, including IDL are done), then it will garble it like someone who speaks English being handed German. you need to translate it into sRGB, which is what the monitor speaks.

that final, corrected image is just like a digital photo in that it's in sRGB space. just like you can (and most photographers do) edit your photo after it's taken, you can edit your render.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

If you are interested, take a look at this fascinating -certainly in the context of this discussion- article from a few years ago, the "White's Illusion" that plagues the human brain can also occur in "any system that tries to emulate human vision." (quote from the article, emphasis mine)

So what does it say about me that "White's Illusion" looks like two equally grey boxes to me. I have to really do some concentrating to get the one on the left to look darker.

Too late to edit my post, but in fact, the boxes on the right should be darker, at least if you see how I do.

I made my own White's illusion. It's the same as in the article, only squeezed down. Squeezing the boxes down exaggerates the effect (see if they still look the same to you), and stretching them bigger will decrease the effect of the illusion.

The one on the right looks darker in your example but the example they showed actually had three vertical strips. I was looking at it wrong. I was comparing the grey strip on the far left to the one on the far right. The one in the middle does look lighter.

Bopperthijs, I would like to see that screenshot.

Quote - I think I found out what's "wrong" with Poserpro gamma correction and dynamic hair. Again I did some experiments today and I came to this conclusion (Please, correct me if I'm wrong because I think this isn't a simple problem): Gamma correction is meant to work with texture maps, to make the renderer work with lineair gamma decoded maps, and if I'm right it actually lowers the midtones of a texturemap before it's send to the renderer, and the renderer boost the midtones of the final picture to get it properly gamma corrected.
But dynamic hair doesn't use texturemaps, but a hair-lighting node. So in fact the gamma correction isn't needed for a hair node, and you have to decode (lower the midtones of) the hair-node if your using poserpro GC.
This can be done the same way as BB does for his VSS-skinshader, by plugging in a power colormath node with a single add mathnode of 2.2 to value2, after the hair node.
You also have to reduce the translucency value, which a lot of dynamic hair shaders use.
If this is not clear, I can make a screenshot.

Best regards,

Bopper.

no, you're wrong. as i posted previously, gamma correction applies to all color input, and the whole range of colors. the only parts of the range that are not transformed are 1 and 0 for each color. this is why bagginsbill's many, many procedural shaders without material based GC work in Poser Pro. it is also, i suspect, why carodan's dynamic hair looks so good in Poser Pro. i don't work with dynamic hair nor do i use Poser Pro, so i can't talk about that specific node in Poser Pro, but i can tell you that your assumptions are way off.

my suggestion is to do material based correction (careful - if you're using IDL, you need to correct after IDL, which means correcting the final image, not the material). then compare it to application based correction. that way you can filter out what you expect from what it should be.

I post some renders and screenshots after I'm finished rendering to show what I mean. Perhaps you're right, but I lose all the soft shadows and highlights when I'm using GC.

regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

"no, CRTs do not natively support the sRGB spec. they are however altered to support it. LCDs do natively support it. as do cameras and scanners."

What I was referring to was the hardware aspect. In a CRT, increasing the voltage to the electron gun does not result in a linear increase in luminance. So a channel value of 128 ( for 8bit channels ) does not display as half-brightness, but rather as something slightly dimmer. Because of the natural physics of the electronics, the CRT is acting as a 'gamma decoder', as pointed out in the Wiki page. In order for the image to display the proper luminance values, the linear image needs to be 'gamma encoded'. An LCD does not naturally exhibit this behavior, so the electronics emulate it. On many LCDs, the gamma decoding value can be set.

As for colorspaces, here's a page that has a nice explanation of the relationship with sRGB and gamma.

*it is also, i suspect, why carodan's dynamic hair looks so good in Poser Pro.

*I read the whole thread about dynamic hair again and GC isn't mentioned at all.

*no, you're wrong. as i posted previously, gamma correction applies to all color input, and the whole range of colors. the only parts of the range that are not transformed are 1 and 0 for each color.

*I did some renders this evening with a white ball, (color 1) without any textures, with a single spotlight and IBL . Poserpro GC makes the diffuse shadows and highlights on the ball very hard, and I don't like that, but perhaps I'm doing something wrong.

I have to go to bed, I see what I can do tomorrow.

Best regards and goodnight,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

bopper,

A "white" ball is still affected by GC at the end, unless it entirely comes out exactly white, i.e. the final rendered pixel is equal to 1.

You seem to be making some point by informing us that it was a white ball.

If you were to change that to a 50% gray ball (in linear color space) but you also increased your light levels exactly in compensation to the decrease in reflectance (to twice what you're using now), the rendered ball would look the same. Is that clear or no?

Shaders are doing a lot more than spitting out the color you put on the ball.

Quote - What I was referring to was the hardware aspect. In a CRT, increasing the voltage to the electron gun does not result in a linear increase in luminance. So a channel value of 128 ( for 8bit channels ) does not display as half-brightness, but rather as something slightly dimmer. Because of the natural physics of the electronics, the CRT is acting as a 'gamma decoder', as pointed out in the Wiki page. In order for the image to display the proper luminance values, the linear image needs to be 'gamma encoded'. An LCD does not naturally exhibit this behavior, so the electronics emulate it. On many LCDs, the gamma decoding value can be set.

As for colorspaces, here's a page that has a nice explanation of the relationship with sRGB and gamma.

actually, i find that page obscures a lot of important points and confuses others. i find the Wikipedia page much clearer and bettter for actually implementing sRGB transformations.

Quote - I read the whole thread about dynamic hair again and GC isn't mentioned at all.

read some his posts on GC and IDL. he uses dynamic hair and IDL in everything i know about now. his Miki 3 previews use dynamic hair, as do many of his images in GC discussion threads. i don't know about his dynamic hair discussions. but since every image i've seen him post has seemed to use the same workflow, i'm pretty sure he's just, you know, using GC. you only have to talk about it when people bring it up.

Quote - Poserpro GC makes the diffuse shadows and highlights on the ball very hard, and I don't like that, but perhaps I'm doing something wrong.

first of all, bagginsbill and carodan have posted ways of blurring the terminator. it involves using SmoothStep to blur the shading. i'm pretty sure i don't use that technique well, so i'll just suggest you look it up. second of all, since i don't know anything about your lighting, i'll mention once again that sRGB equations are a little more accurate than GC. this means that GC is flatter and less accurate in dark areas, which affects surface shading, cast shadows and dark diffuse colors. third, if you're working on an indoor scene, you might want to make sure your lights have some falloff. i realize you might already be doing this, but i thought i'd mention it just in case.

Quote - I did some renders this evening with a white ball, (color 1) without any textures, with a single spotlight and IBL . Poserpro GC makes the diffuse shadows and highlights on the ball very hard, and I don't like that, but perhaps I'm doing something wrong.

You're doing nothing wrong. This is how real light behaves. This is a real life sphere with a point light, and the line between light and shadow is very harsh. It only looks odd to us because we rarely see any object lit from a single direction, there is almost always indirect light in addition.

There actually is a bit of indirect lighting in that case, as the sun is shining on half of the side of the Earth facing the Moon, which is why the New Moon is visible:

www.dewbow.co.uk/glows/eshine1.html

I couldn't find a good crisp picture of the phases of Venus, which would not have that issue...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

*You're doing nothing wrong. This is how real light behaves. This is a real life sphere with a point light, and the line between light and shadow is very harsh. It only looks odd to us because we rarely see any object lit from a single direction, there is almost always indirect light in addition.

*I did some testrenders again today and came to same conclusion, funny enough the moon was also the first thing that came to my mind. There are lot of things that are clear to me now. If I want to work with GC I have to lower my light levels, BB was absolutely right about that and he deserves credit for that and all his investigations, I'm just not a person who is easily convinced and have to try out things before I can accept it, but what's wrong with double checking?
Just switching on GC in poserpro isn't a solution to make your renders better. You also have to change the lighting and the shaders. In combination with GC, IBL is almost a must to use. It just enlightens the dark side of the moon
I'm afraid my dynamic hair shader approach wasn't a solution at all so I have reïnvestigate the hairshader how I can make it work with Gamma correction. So I won't post my materialroomsettings, because it doesn't fix the problem. (excuse for that)
If anyone is interested I can post my GC testrenders.

Best regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Sorry, but where I said IBL, I meant IDL.

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

actually, i think the issue is front SSS. at such a huge distance, i'm sure the spread is undetectable, but for small and close objects, it's not. and almost everything that's not metal (stone, wood, skin, plants, plastic, cloudy glass, etc.) has some SSS.

A little demo. No it's not art. I don't need to do art to show what the big deal is with GC.

This is about accuracy. Accuracy is of interest when attempting to do something realistic. Realism is of interest when that's what you want. Please don't talk to me about whether art requires realism or accuracy. It doesn't, and I neither demand realism and accuracy nor care if you don't want to seek it. Do your own thing. Despite what some have said, I do not demand anything of your art.

But there are people who seek realism. Maybe they need to do a commercial showing a car ad, without an actual car. Maybe they just like making fantasy "photos" that cannot be done in real life. Doesn't matter why. The point is, if you're trying to show accurate lighting, and keep it simple instead of making it hard, then I try to help people understand how to do that. For people who ask me how to get more realism, I talk about GC. It's the simplest first step to an outcome that is "less wrong". Even if perfection is never achieved, less wrong is better than more wrong. By wrong I mean in the sense of physics, not art.

I also help with toon shaders, Vargas airbursh effects, and other forms of art. In those cases, I do not talk about GC.

This image done with:

PPro 2010, one spot light with inverse square falloff and IDL, but no GC.

This is the same, but GC is on.

Now here is why postwork is not as good as GC in render.

I took the first image, which was not gamma corrected, into Photoshop.

Using Photoshop Levels, I adjusted the middle value from 1, to 2.2. This is the same as gamma correction, except that the incoming step of anti-gamma correction was not performed. So I had to also increase saturation, because the full linear workflow was not followed.

Notice the banding. This is because information was lost. The darker shades on the wall were recorded at very low levels in the original image. Postwork gamma correction can only adjust those individual values to their corresponding levels-adjusted values. The in-between values are not there in this version, because they did not exist in the data stored in the uncorrected image.

This is why postwork levels adjustment falls short. You are starting with less information, and the info you have is less accurate. You cannot fix this in postwork.

Notice also that the first (darkest) figure is still pretty much black. That's because in the uncorrected image, most of him was less than 1, i.e. 0. You cannot adjust levels around 0. There is no data. 0 to any power is still 0.

If you really want to do post-work levels adjustment in a scene with dark areas accurately, you must store the image in HDR or EXR format. Then the data is more than 8-bits and the low level detail can be recovered.

But from a JPEG or PNG, the data is lost forever.

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that I'm visually used to certain effects in poser without GC, like the soft diffuse shadows on a ball. I now understand that that is actually wrong, like Stewer showed with his moonpicture and I discovered also this afternoon. ( talking about an AHA-erlebnis)
But shadows like that only exist in outerspace or in a black-velvet clothed room, so we always need IBL with ambient occlusion or use IDL in combination with GC, to get softer and realistic shadows.
I still have to work on the dynamic hair shaders,but I'm making some progress.
Using inverse square falloff is also a good tip, I forgot about that one.

Best regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Bopper - shadows like I showed above are exactly what you get on a stage or any large room with a single light source near the subjects. They are perfectly realistic for the environment I created, and if I made a similar one in real life, then it would really look like that. There is only a wall and floor in my setup, so even though IDL is enabled, there's nothing else around to bounce light off of. But there is still a lot of bounced light.

I chose that scenario, only because it would demonstrate the banding problem and the zero-data problem.

But much can be learned from studying that setup.

Here is the same, rendered with GC, but without IDL. Lacking the IDL, this is indeed very unrealistic. Compare this with my second render above.

And here is why IDL is important.

Instead of IDL, I used IBL to produce some sort of secondary lighting. But the big problem with IBL is it is uniform through the whole scene. It is incapable of capturing the fact that the amount of ambient light varies across the scene. When you use IBL, the secondary light is the same throughout the entire universe.

IDL does not make that error. It varies the amount of secondary light according to how much bounced primary light is nearby. Thus, accuracy is increased.

The IBL image is not terrible, but compared to the IDL image, it is more wrong. Very much more wrong.

I think I have learn again how to set up my lighting for my renders. I found out that lower levels of light work better with GC and IDL. I believe you have said that ages ago, but now I'm starting to see why. In fact I have to gamma-correct my brain to see how GC works.
It's a new challenge but that keeps the life interesting.

Bopper.

I missed your other post while typing, but you're right. I think it's one of the best new features of poser 8 and poserpro 2010

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Realism isn't just for naked Vickies. Have a look at this image by tate.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2061041

These are unrealistic cartoon characters, shapes that can never occur in real life. So what. It's a fantastic image, and the realistic lighting and GC materials are used to very good effect in what is otherwise a toon image.

I'm almost certain that tate doesn't know any of the math. But he's an artist with vision and tools to execute that vision.

Bill makes a good point. Just like you can add toons or an artistic style to a "real" character to get something totally different, you can add a "real" shader to a toon character to get something completely new. It's about matching the mats to your vision, whatever that is. If GC can help it go for it. If not, then don't use it.

BTW the GCed one with robots and IDL looks the best to me.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Quote - > Quote - I did some renders this evening with a white ball, (color 1) without any textures, with a single spotlight and IBL . Poserpro GC makes the diffuse shadows and highlights on the ball very hard, and I don't like that, but perhaps I'm doing something wrong.

You're doing nothing wrong. This is how real light behaves. This is a real life sphere with a point light, and the line between light and shadow is very harsh. It only looks odd to us because we rarely see any object lit from a single direction, there is almost always indirect light in addition.

This falls into what TVTropes called "The Coconut Effect". People are so used to not seeing that harsh line between really bright and black on images, TV, and film, where the lighting is arranged, manipulated, or rendered so as to show the entire object, that when they see a real image it looks wrong to them, even though it's actually right.

I'm just breezing in briefly (the man got me slaving at making paintings ATM).

KobaltKween's quite right - I use Poser pro GC pretty much exclusively now. I've found (as bb's examples suggest) that the output using GC gives a much better tonal balance to renders and that any postwork I do involving exposure/levels adjustments tends to be far more minimal and the results far less likely to result in ugly banding artifacts (a problem I frequently had before GC).

I have to admit though that I haven't quite figured out the best approach to rendering dynamic hair with IDL and GC. I thought I had a solid method but ran into problems again - I was just starting to do some new tests that I was posting in the aforementioned dynamic hair thread before I got distracted with commercial jobs. My best results to date with dynamic hair and IDL have been using HSVExponential Tone Mapping instead of GC, but I'm sure we'll get it licked before too long with GC. There's mainly an issue with some of the fine detail but I'm pretty sure it's a shader issue with the hair. When I get some free time I'll be doing more experiments.

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

Quote - not hesitating to correct you ;D.

Wikipedia

Quote - Many JPEG files embed an ICC color profile (color space). Commonly used color profiles include sRGB and Adobe RGB. Because these color spaces use a non-linear transformation, the dynamic range of an 8-bit JPEG file is about 11 stops. However, many applications are not able to deal with JPEG color profiles and simply ignore them.

afaik, Poser does not support reading color profiles. that's not what makes you need to linearize your texture. if the images are created by a digital camera or scanner, those devices use sRGB space. if you paint a texture, you see it through an sRGB device, so in that sense, the monitor will affect your image. but not in the sense you seem to mean.

...

the issue is more that if it looks right on your screen, the renderer can't work with it.

in my experience, the difference between Mac and PC was easier to handle in post than the difference between GC equations and sRGB equations. or actually, pretty much ignore and just use the same principles of making images that work in general on the web. just like the sRGB printers and other digital devices do, in my expeience it's best to work to the specification. at least for the raw render.

Kobaltkween, thank you so much for correcting me. I see that I will need to do a lot more research into the fascinating topic of gamma correction on the web. If you happen to have more favorite web links on this topic, please post them.

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: What's the big deal with gamma correction?