like Kobaltkween wrote: GC is a tool, like the Exposure. Use then wisely.

GC is increasing the dynamics (amount of detail) in the darks, at the cost of dynamics / detail in the midtones and hilights. If it's too much you can reduce the amount, say 1.6 instead of 2.2. Or you can do some inverse Curves adjustment in Photoshop.

However, you cannot do the reverse: no GC in the image and a GC like operation in Photoshop, simply because Photoshop cannot improve on dark details which are not in the image in the first place. Even using HDR for image format doesn't help much.

Exposure does a somewhat similar thing: it reduces the dynamics in the hilights at the benefit of midtones and darks. So, exposure 4 brings a result quite similar to gamma 2.2, but still the GC is stronger in the darks.

See my measurements in a previous thread (my battle with BB on GC) - bottom of page 2:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2837547&page=2

In your image, your opinion is that there is too much dynamics in the darks: they brighten up and show too much detail. So: reduce gamma to 1.6 in Poser, or render with gamma = 2.2 and reduces shadow-dynamics in post. IMHO.

From first looks it seems that gamma is already applied to the materials.  Your gamma corrected image reminds me of my renders when I apply a gamma setting to the materials and then use gamma correction.  There is a script in Poser 8 and Poser Pro 2012 that will allow you to change the gamma settings for the materials.

As for the what setting the gamma should be on, then from my point of view the answer will be. Leave it on any setting that you wish to have it on.  In other words have it set at what you think is best.

If you want gamma correction to be set at 2.2 then you'll have to make sure that all of the other settings that you want to use be set at 1 (If I remember correctly).

When I look at your render I can't help but to think that you are correcting materials that already have a gamma setting.  

Here is some information I wrote about Gamma Correction.

There is a big difference between "looks better" and "is better"; for further information see the last three images I have uploaded at deviantART.

actually, GC has issues with dynamics in the (very) darks.  if you look at a gamma curve, as it approaches 0, it flattens out. this is why the more correct sRGB equations are linear at that point, and why you can spend an awful lot of time fighting a really bright response to really dim lights with GC.  i know because i did that, and was bringing my lights down to 0.1% and still not getting the almost totally shadowed look i was going for (based on the works of some photographers i follow).  the gamma curve also flattens out along the y as it goes up, which is why you can start to have to bring your lights way up to change the result once you reach a certain brightness.

using the more correct sRGB equations also gives you somewhat more saturated results in darker areas as well as somewhat softer shadows. that said, the difference between sRGB linear workflow and GC linear workflow is a lot smaller than the difference between either workflow and standard workflow.  also, since Poser doesn't have an sRGB render option, you can only use it with materials.  render GC is more accurate in most cases, but it also creates some issues.

looked at one way, what linear workflow does is simple.  renderers make linear calculations.  digital imaging devices do not work in linear color space, and instead use the sRGB standard.  this means images are in sRGB space and monitors display in it.  linear workflow means translating color input like maps and color swatches to linear space for the renderer to understand, and then translating the result to sRGB space for the monitor to understand. 

one level of complexity comes in when you have a whole bunch of nodes and things that you don't want affected by render GC.  sure you can set the gamma for image maps, but that's only one type of node.   for instance, i use Matmatic and have equations that don't specifiy whether they result in materials using color math or regular math.  even though math should be linear, color math nodes get corrected at some stage.  i'm not yet sure whether the inputs are corrected or the outputs.  when i can avoid color math, it's fine.  but when i can't specifically use regular math, i can't counteract the linearization, because the decision about whether to use color math or not is in Matmatic's hands.  render GC also seems to affect how blending works, even if you make sure the mask has a gamma of 1.  basically, because you can do almost anything with nodes, there's lots of situations in which Poser can guess wrong about what to linearize and what not to.  it's not a big deal if you keep your materials simple and or work in one workflow.  for instance, the blending issue isn't a problem if you never expect your mask to work as it does in the other workflow.  it's just a slightly different scale.

a second level of complexity comes from most Poser Pro owners not being new to Poser.  for most people, it's non-trivial to have to start fresh with all their lights and all their materials.  not to mention dealing with new content, too.  but there are some good lights and materials out there that are designed to work with render GC, have GC built in, or both.

Thank you for finally publishing this, KobaltKween. (had a whole bunch more stuff to say, but deleted it - trivial rubbish...)

Thanks for all of the information, everyone.  Interesting.  Now I understand why everyone has been posting about "linear" and "non-linear".  :lol:  I didn't quite get it.

Does anyone understand how the node-based gamma correction in BB's satin/silk texture works?  I'm finding that the silk materials for which I've adapted his shader are looking better than other materials, under almost all conditions.  If the same method could be integrated into other shaders, I rather wonder if that might help some of them. 

As far as I know he has his choices of nodes built-in in matmatic. You may use that to look, or you may be able to grab it from his well explained glossy shader. 

just to be clear, I'm not extrapolating from the particular to the general in re: render GC.  in this specific case, in this specific batgirl render, I'm suggesting OP try HSVTM, as it may enable certain rendering results that may be more aesthetically pleasing to OP.

Quote - the following is baffling to scientists, but check out the great masters who were trying to do realistic paintings starting in the renaissance.  they used non-linear application of pigments to depict illumination of the scene because they learnt thru trial and error that human perception varies, but is decidedly non-linear in its aesthetic sense.

And for those dealing with a digital medium, may I suggest X-rite, perhaps some reading on Munsell Colour system, and the more accute CMC system. Note these systems can use the same above pigments. However the artistic quality is still in the hands of the artist.

Cage, If your non GC image is how you pictured it, then it's perfect as is. If your looking for a more consistant approach for the future then GC is worth learning (it's not perfect  but it's more consistant than the linear).

The cool thing about GC shaders, is they tend to work across a far greater spectrum, meaning that same shader that worked in Day light, works in the dark dungeon. You create a shader that works, and continues to work. But some prefer to reinvent the wheel for every render, I'm way too lazy for that.

Quote - Cage, If your non GC image is how you pictured it, then it's perfect as is. If your looking for a more consistant approach for the future then GC is worth learning (it's not perfect  but it's more consistant than the linear). The cool thing about GC shaders, is they tend to work across a far greater spectrum, meaning that same shader that worked in Day light, works in the dark dungeon. You create a shader that works, and continues to work. But some prefer to reinvent the wheel for every render, I'm way too lazy for that.

i heartily agree with this, but add that most don't change their materials for different light.  just like alexcoppo sees the regular workflow images as more correct and better (though to me the shadows are too dark, and the GC version is properly ambient considering bright sky and bright ground), lots of people get the results they want, expect, and deliberately try to achieve with regular workflow.  again, i follow a lot of artists, and the ones that don't use GC don't do only one type of lighting.   they just see their results as looking the way they want.  i've seen pros post works i could tell used regular workflow due to how a few of their bright areas were overexposed.  that said, they were also doing incredibly solid work with great textures, modeling, use of light and shadow, composition, posing, expression, wrinkling, hanging, and not bending of cloth, realistic handling of hair.... i could go on and on.

if you want the results in the first place, then GC is very consistent and helpful.  if what you want is high contrast, slightly unreal, saturated works, then you're probably going to have to spend a lot of time working against GC if you use it, the same way someone going for realism has to work against the regular workflow.   you will have more gamut to play with, but that may end up having a very slight effect compared to the effort involved.  and again, there's a lot of aspects to realism, let alone art that is visually strong and communicates clearly.  workflow should always follow goals, not the other way around.

if you're interested, i can post my link (warning: with nudity) to my 6 light studies using material gamma correction, material sRGB correction, and regular workflow in P7 (i have a 7th, but i didn't put it through the permutations).   the lighting was designed to match some of my reference photos.  i did the tests a while ago and haven't updated them.  if you want, it should give you some idea of how the different workflows respond to light, though render GC and newer versions of Firefly would make a significant difference.  i'd have given those light sets out already if i could figure out the best way to set up the accompanying scenes.

oh, and yes, bagginsbill's materials are designed to automatically toggle material GC based on whether render GC is activated.   all of his materials are designed to work with linear workflow.  materials that are designed to work in linear workflow will perform better there than ones designed for regular workflow. i don't think the converse is true (though i can't be sure). i just submitted a basic material set (as in general materials you can make into lots of different materials) to Rendo that i designed for linear workflow (both render GC and material based).  i tested them using regular workflow and various settings of some popular light presets.  they performed very well, imho.

I'm interested in trying to learn about GC in Poser, how to use it, why to use it, when to use (or not to use) it.  Any links you can provide might be helpful to me, or to anyone else who happens along and tries to learn something from this thread.

I'm a bit puzzled by the "regular" and "linear" workflow ideas.  Are these standard CG industry terms?  I find my personal workflow to be quite regular, really, but it would be classed as "linear".  So... hmm.  :unsure:

I generally don't vary my shaders for different lighting conditions, but I'm also more of a Poser tinkerer than a nice-looking render sort of person.  :lol:  The heightened capabilities of Poser Pro 2012 have me more interested in actual rendering than I have been since 2003 or so.  So perhaps I'm playing catch up.

The one shader, of those pictured on the figure I've been showing here, that I perhaps should alter for lighting context is that lurex shader.  The material should look high-contrast in some lighting, flat in other lighting.  Sometimes it should be a red-based purple, other times a blue-based purple.  It's a very strange, complicated material, this lurex, and I've only managed to capture (sort of) its look under one set of conditions.  If a shader wizard ever wanted a challenge, I think a correct and fully-functional lurex shader for Poser would be a good one.  :lol:

There's nothing to learn about using GC in PP2012 - it's either turned on or off, and you may under some circumstances want to change the value from 2.2 to something else for artistic purposes (wade through this). 

The thing you really have to learn is to indentify and correct all the weird shader and lighting tricks made in earlier versions to compensate for lack of GC (and IDL). 

Quote - There's nothing to learn about using GC in PP2012 - it's either turned on or off, and you may under some circumstances want to change the value from 2.2 to something else for artistic purposes (wade through this). 

**The thing you really have to learn is to identify and correct all the weird shader and lighting tricks made in earlier versions to compensate for lack of GC (and IDL). **

And that is NOT a trivial undertaking. PP2012 users will, more than with previous versions, need to do their homework if they want decent renders. The reliance on packaged products produced for previous versions will invariably lead them astray.

I don't use packaged lights, for instance. With the exception of a few over at that R other D store N I won't mention A by name, commercial light sets are a means to overcome previous Poser versions lighting shortcomings.

And so it goes.

It is called evolution.

From "faking" in earlier Poser versions to quite real in recent Poser versions.

For outside sunshine renders, One single infinite light in BB's sphere is all you'll ever need. 
There is only one sun. :-)

Quote - The thing you really have to learn is to indentify and correct all the weird shader and lighting tricks made in earlier versions to compensate for lack of GC (and IDL).

Quote - And that is NOT a trivial undertaking. PP2012 users will, more than with previous versions, need to do their homework if they want decent renders.

Yes.  But perhaps there are problems, there.  Among them, the fact that the shader preview shows results without GC, if I'm relying on the render settings.  At least as far as I can tell, GC breaks any WYSIWYG aspect of the Materials Room.  Which is a bit of a problem, I would think.  (Unless you're BB, which most of us aren't.  :laugh:)  Which is why...

Quote - It is called evolution.

... why I seem to be developing the sense that it isn't fully evolved yet.  It's ready to use, but still it's not quite where it could be.

Even so, I'd like to learn to use it, just to know how.  I'm not really convinced, here on page three, that I'll be using it under most normal circumstances.  :unsure:

Quote - > Quote - The thing you really have to learn is to indentify and correct all the weird shader and lighting tricks made in earlier versions to compensate for lack of GC (and IDL).

Quote - And that is NOT a trivial undertaking. PP2012 users will, more than with previous versions, need to do their homework if they want decent renders.

Yes.  But perhaps there are problems, there.  Among them, the fact that the shader preview shows results without GC, if I'm relying on the render settings.  At least as far as I can tell, GC breaks any WYSIWYG aspect of the Materials Room.  Which is a bit of a problem, I would think.  (Unless you're BB, which most of us aren't.  :laugh:)  Which is why...

Actually, it can show the preview with the gamma applied (the image in the material nodes and the small color rectangles). But whenever you switch the gamma in the render settings, you have to leave the material tab and then enter it again, so that the display gets redrawn. At least this is the case with P2010. It does not show the 3d-preview with GC, though, perhaps that works with P2012 when GLSL is enabled?

Quote - It does not show the 3d-preview with GC, though, perhaps that works with P2012 when GLSL is enabled?

What is GLSL?

I haven't noticed that render GC is reflected in my material previews.  I'm sort of flying blind, while trying to compensate for GC, because I still see the pre-GC preview.  I have to undertake a lot of slow-ish test renders to see what's happening.  That sort of trial and error is tiresome, after awhile.  :lol:  So if it is possible to see GC in preview, I would be a happier Poserite.  :laugh:

Quote - > Quote - It does not show the 3d-preview with GC, though, perhaps that works with P2012 when GLSL is enabled?

What is GLSL?

You get it when you select "enable hardware shading" in the render settings of P2012 (literally GL Shading Language). It seems to work with this option enabled (i just checked shortly).

Aha.  That would explain it.  I've disabled the hardware preview, because of the irritating lag when switching back from a render to the preview.  I've understood that that problem will be addressed in the SR.  I guess I should try using the feature, at least in this case.  Thank you. :thumbupboth:

Quote - But????
Where is BB - shader mastermind?????
He should have been here hoursssss agoooooo ;-)

IDL is his favorite playground :-)

He'd blink at your render and solve it in supercruise.
Leaving a wave of; "Why did not I think at that", behind.

I am desperately trying to make my metal shaders good enough to pass my value proposition to justify charging money for them.

I have been doing an incredible amount of work to verify my assumptions and to make the shader as flexible as possible. 

As a result, I have not time to address questions.

Please be patient. I have made some incredible discoveries in the last few days.

Quote - Yes.  But perhaps there are problems, there.  Among them, the fact that the shader preview shows results without GC, if I'm relying on the render settings.  At least as far as I can tell, GC breaks any WYSIWYG aspect of the Materials Room.  Which is a bit of a problem, I would think.  (Unless you're BB, which most of us aren't.  :laugh:)  Which is why... > Quote - It is called evolution.

... why I seem to be developing the sense that it isn't fully evolved yet.  It's ready to use, but still it's not quite where it could be.

Even so, I'd like to learn to use it, just to know how.  I'm not really convinced, here on page three, that I'll be using it under most normal circumstances.  :unsure:

I have exactly that same feeling, Cage. Let's take eyelashes, for instance. Basically, what is an eyelash in Poser? A transmap (which means to me: an image with no colour information... it says "just paint here, don't paint there") set to texture Filtering = Quality and diffuse colour is black or really dark. Let's say black.

So, why do the eyelashes look anemic? Blah? Like they need a touch of mascara? Or, let's say we want the mascara look, how do we do that? Make fatter white riplines in the transmap image?

No, we set the GC setting to < 1!

Whoa. I thought "GC = 1" was equivalent to "GC is turned off". My tiny intellect suddenly blew a fuse trying to reconcile that.

Quote - I have been doing an incredible amount of work to verify my assumptions and to make the shader as flexible as possible. 

As a result, I have not time to address questions.

Please be patient. I have made some incredible discoveries in the last few days.

YAY! Take your time to finish your shaders, BB. We can wait. Your answers are always worth waiting for!

If my goal was perfectly photorealistic stuff, or, to be more precise, aiming for a job at PIXAR, I wouldn't waste my time with Poser.

Poser and Studio are hobbyist apps, and if a new feature doesn't improve the workflow of the average user, it was a waste of valuable development time.

IMHO.

ANYWAY........

Here's a render of your suit using "proper" Gamma Correction of 2.20.

Suit and skin shaders are just your default settings.

Lights are three "actual" lights (IBL, Sun/Shadow and Rim) and five additional "preview" lights.

They don't add anything to the finished render but allow a better WYSIWYG OpenGL preview.

(But they can also be "activated" to add more specularity if needed)

If you think these "GC-Special" lights make your suit shaders more like you had envisioned, I'd be happy to send you a copy.

Quote - Here's a render of your suit using "proper" Gamma Correction of 2.20.
Suit and skin shaders are just your default settings.

Lights are three "actual" lights (IBL, Sun/Shadow and Rim) and five additional "preview" lights.
They don't add anything to the finished render but allow a better WYSIWYG OpenGL preview.

(But they can also be "activated" to add more specularity if needed)
If you think these "GC-Special" lights make your suit shaders more like you had envisioned, I'd be happy to send you a copy.

Wow, that looks like a very old version of the character, with old shaders.  Is that Vicky1?  It's interesting that the suit shader there looks like it's coming out a bit better with GC.

I would be interested in trying the lights you've used.  Thank you.  :laugh:

Got your Batgirl from here:

http://www.the.cage.page.phantom3d.net/2005/build/CagePage.html

Is there another place where I can get a newer version ?

The .ltz file is attached.

Save it and remove the .txt extension.

Quote - Got your Batgirl from here:

http://www.the.cage.page.phantom3d.net/2005/build/CagePage.html
Is there another place where I can get a newer version ?

A much more recent Antonia version is here:

http://www.the.cage.page.phantom3d.net/Antonia/Antonia_stuff.html

Requires Antonia-1.2 and a few items from the Antonia Free Site (linked on my page) for full use.  The posted version was developed using Poser 8, however, and doesn't use SSS or other Poser Pro features.  The version I've been showing in this thread is a WIP update of the posted Antonia version, for Poser 9+.

Quote - Here is a comparison render with a no-shader skin :

Interesting.  The rendered results look a lot like the preview.

I'll try your light set.  Thank you! :laugh:

"A much more recent Antonia version is here:"

Thank you.

Guess I then have to re-download Antonia again. :-)

Set "alt diffuse" in the suit shader to white and cranked up both IBL and SUN lights a bit.

Somethings wrong with the eye shader but too lazy to fix it.

Quote - Somethings wrong with the eye shader but too lazy to fix it.

The out-of-the-box figure at my site doesn't have textures applied, because most of those need to be downloaded separately from the Free Site.  There's a MAT file included to apply the textures, once they're loaded into the Runtime.  So the irises don't have any texture coloring them, in the above render.

Thanks for doing all of this testing.  :thumbupboth:

Now I understand bagginsbill reluctance at discussing GC. All wasted time.

Quote - Now I understand bagginsbill reluctance at discussing GC. All wasted time.

Eh?  Why?  Because of its complications and limitations, or because users like myself are just a bit too thick to make it work?  :lol:  'Cause I freely admit the latter.  :laugh:

to get a job at pixar, one needs non-photo-realistic skills that translate into something the Y7 demographic will buy into, including the associated ads and merchandising IMVHO.  that's the basis of the disney/pixar marketing model.  "photo-realistic" appeals to 3d aficionados as an intellectual exercise, but doesn't translate into $$,$$$,$$$,$$$ like the disney/pixar method does.  the dreamworks model is somewhat different and they might be hiring people with photorealistic clips in their demo reels, which is rare for poser.  usually it's just those horrid P4 preview anims or wacky poser physics stuff more suitable for the gamers market.

p.s. these batgirl renders might pick up alot more dynamic range and surface detail if the figure is placed in a scene full of objects completely surrounding the figure on all six sides, so there's plenty of light detail and IDL interaction.

It's more than just a click in the render settings. GC changes the shadows and the dark parts of an image a lot, when I started to work with GC I had a lot of problems making everything work. I still have an image from this time in my gallery, Girly Happy Christmas. The dress is much darker then I have planned, the present is too dark too. But since BB's skin shader IS gamma corrected, I had to fiddle around with the other materials too to make them look the same. This wasn't done in a "Pro" version, but rendered with gamma-correcting shaders (the wacros for that are in freestuff, but if you use IDL, tone mapping is probably better than shader-based GC).

For me, GC is a good thing. And not just for photorealism.

Quote - > Quote - Now I understand bagginsbill reluctance at discussing GC. All wasted time.

Eh?  Why?  Because of its complications and limitations, or because users like myself are just a bit too thick to make it work?  :lol:  'Cause I freely admit the latter.  :laugh:

Doesn't get you anywhere, Cage - I admit it about myself all the time: the expectations are still there. Besides, no one would ever believe you: you're too smart to convincingly disguise yourself as thick. You've put too many brilliant freebies out there... that's where you went "wrong". :biggrin:

For me, GC has been a "return to simplest" thing. 1 light. Simple shaders. Then, I cautiously add stuff, and watch it fail. :blink:

I'm still waiting to hear what BB's discovered... it might bring back shader-based makeup (with GC) for me.

So right RobynsVeil

All the thing we faked before, are no longer needed in an IDL + GC environment.
Shaders can be a lot simpler now.
And as you, BB's sphere and one light only mostly do the thing.

If I need something more, I put ambient on something that emits light.
Like a TV, a PC sceen, or a candle.

And let Poser do its thing.

BB has a satin/silk shader? I thought I had collected nearly everything he posted.

Quote - Thanks for all of the information, everyone.  Interesting.  Now I understand why everyone has been posting about "linear" and "non-linear".  :lol:  I didn't quite get it.

Does anyone understand how the node-based gamma correction in BB's satin/silk texture works?  I'm finding that the silk materials for which I've adapted his shader are looking better than other materials, under almost all conditions.  If the same method could be integrated into other shaders, I rather wonder if that might help some of them. 

Quote - BB has a satin/silk shader? I thought I had collected nearly everything he posted.

Sorry, it's actually a nylon shader.  Why did I remember that as satin/silk?  Huh.  A Freudian might be able to make a great deal of my weird mental lapses.  :lol:  When I use the wrong term, though, it makes a site search difficult.

The BB shader is revealed and explained in this thread:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3656219&ebot_calc_page#message_3656219

Quote - Doesn't get you anywhere, Cage - I admit it about myself all the time: the expectations are still there. Besides, no one would ever believe you: you're too smart to convincingly disguise yourself as thick. You've put too many brilliant freebies out there... that's where you went "wrong".

Thanks, Robyn, but... I live with myself every day, and I see all the evidence of not being terribly smart.  :lol:  If I accomplish anything of worth, it's usually by throwing a lot of time at it, and periodically making a big, intuitive leap.  I learn slowly, misunderstand readily, and don't retain information very well.  I seem to have an "uneven profile" of cognitive capabilities.

But it also amuses me to put myself down, for whatever reason.  Some kind of Woody Allen thing happening there.  Like I said, a Freudian....  :unsure:

Quote - For me, GC has been a "return to simplest" thing. 1 light. Simple shaders. Then, I cautiously add stuff, and watch it fail.

:lol:

Quote - All the thing we faked before, are no longer needed in an IDL + GC environment.
Shaders can be a lot simpler now.

I like this answer, and I wish I could live up to it!  :laugh: