Poser 10 do fast renders but I have a problem with the Gamma Correction (one of the options in the render settings menu).

If I put the Gamma Correction option ON, I will not get good results in the renders. With the Gamma Correction ON, the hair transparencies (and also the transmapped eyelashes) get thinner and less visible. Also, with the Gamma Correction ON, a lot of textures(MAT's) for Victoria 4 and other figures do not work as well as the older Poser versions.

I only get good results (as the older Poser versions - Poser 9, 8...) with the Gamma Correction OFF.

Do you know if there a way to use the Gamma Correction Option without theese problems?

Please take a look to the attached image.

Thank you a lot for your attention.

There are about a million threads on how to fix your GC issues here in the forums.

Your materials are not set up for GC.  Get snarly-gribbly's scene-fixer.  1 click solution.

As was mentioned in another thread, you have to turn off gamma on transparancy/bump/displacement.  Also many textures were originally made with a sort of fake gamma correction that will interfere with using it.

Two tools:

scene fixer:  http://snarlygribbly.org/3d/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13&sid=05692e36fd802c39dd8b4f5283cb8787

And EzSkin: http://snarlygribbly.org/3d/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=134&sid=05692e36fd802c39dd8b4f5283cb8787

will help a lot.

Bill

you should also check out ArtBee's missing manual on corrections. He explains WHY this stuff happens and not just how to fix the problem.

http://www.book.artbeeweb.nl/?p=317

is it worth all the extra work? the gamma off looks nice.  

and if you have a scene full of props like urban sprawl?  
whats rendering with gamma going to do to the city?

if you're already using SSS, why need gc also?

Thank you so much for your help!

I am a mearchant I and I always try to make the product the most compatible with Poser as possible.

Thank you once again!

nope...with gamma off everything looks kinda off and you loose some of the photorealism.

photorealism may not be your goal..in that case do whatever you like. Nothing is wrong or right just whatever works for you.

Non-GC shaders and non-GC lights will produce bad renders with GC enabled.

But this can be easily fixed thanks to BB and SnarlyGribbly's scripts.

If you need some GC-lights, go here:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=4055697

SSS and IDL and light falloff won't work properly without GC. You get an "effect", but it's not realistic.

Once you get used to GC, it's also much easier to build shaders or light your scene as you don't have to compensate for errors anymore.

GC for example lets you have much more light in your renders without the dreaded "highlight burn".

Quote - @MistyLaraPrincess

nope...with gamma off everything looks kinda off and you loose some of the photorealism.

photorealism may not be your goal..in that case do whatever you like. Nothing is wrong or right just whatever works for you.

but there are some problems with Gamma Correction as 3dream pointed out to me in an pm a few minutes ago.

take a look:

The transmaps need to be excluded from GC in the material room: "Custom Gamma Value = 1.0"

Rule of thumb: Colored maps = 2.2. B/W maps = 1.0

SceneFixer snd EZSkin will usually do that automatically, but some hair shaders are a bit weird so you have to do it manually.

Other than that, the skin shader looks much, much more realistic on the GC render. Eye shader could use some more tweaking. The eye-shader EZSkin creates doesn't look good with any eye-texture.

With Poser 10 and PoserPro 2014.

Always render with IDL and GC enabled.

But?
You will have to remove all old style faking from the material room setups on all textures and nodes.

All Black and White maps as bump, transparancy, displacement, specular maps, masks,  HAVE to be loaded at Gamma 1.

All color maps at Gamma 2.2
All old style blue faking has to be removed.
All ambient on skins has to be removed.
All AO should be removed.

You do not need all these old style "faking" tricks any more.

IDL and GC take over; and that is how light behaves in the real world.

Happy Posering
Tony

it's like beating my head against a wall....

Quote - The transmaps need to be excluded from GC in the material room: "Custom Gamma Value = 1.0"

this information has been helpful.

now, does anyone know how I can get Lucia Hair to look more sleek looking like Rhene here?

Normally, the new "crisp" setting is the one to choose, but some textures (especially hair) can look better with the older "quality" setting.

(This also depends on your render quality settings, btw.)

I simply turn off gamma correction, which imo can make the image look flat, dull, washed out, and it kills highlights/shadows. GC can look nice if you take all the required steps as mentioned by other posters above, and set up the materials properly, but imo simply too much work for the results. If you're a photoshop person like me, just tick it off and apply it as needed in PS. Also if you're losing a bit of photorealism due to turning GC off, theres many softening techniques and hdr-toning that will really make your image pop out and realistic. It works for me since my images are 40% poser 60% photoshop. If you don't use photoshop, then IDL will give that realistic look, and most IDL sets i've seen actually require you to turn off GC.

Quote - I simply turn off gamma correction, which imo can make the image look flat, dull, washed out, and it kills highlights/shadows. GC can look nice if you take all the required steps as mentioned by other posters above, and set up the materials properly, but imo simply too much work for the results. If you're a photoshop person like me, just tick it off and apply it as needed in PS. Also if you're losing a bit of photorealism due to turning GC off, theres many softening techniques and hdr-toning that will really make your image pop out and realistic. It works for me since my images are 40% poser 60% photoshop. If you don't use photoshop, then IDL will give that realistic look, and most IDL sets i've seen actually require you to turn off GC.

There is no doubt for me that Gamma on and set to 2.2 is the way to go. As mentioned above, scene fixer will correct anything wrong in the materials. What I have found that with gamma off, reflection maps (especially), don't act as they should.

If IDL is being used, and it's using an HDRI, then the gamma for the HDRI should be set to 1.0 in the materials editor.

In fear of repeating myself though, Scene Fixer is a must have item. If your not going into the material room to set-up bump, displacement, reflection or trans-maps correctly, or using Scene Fixer, then the materials are not being shown as intended...period!

Quote - There is no doubt for me that Gamma on and set to 2.2 is the way to go. As mentioned above, scene fixer will correct anything wrong in the materials. What I have found that with gamma off, reflection maps (especially), don't act as they should. If IDL is being used, and it's using an HDRI, then the gamma for the HDRI should be set to 1.0 in the materials editor.

In fear of repeating myself though, Scene Fixer is a must have item. If your not going into the material room to set-up bump, displacement, reflection or trans-maps correctly, or using Scene Fixer, then the materials are not being shown as intended...period!

I usually use ezskin 2 and set up my own custom maps in the material room. So far ezskin 2 has not failed me =P

There's no need to go into the material room as Poser includes a python to fix this quickly.

Menu: Scripts: MaterialMods: changeGamma:Enter a value of 1, press OK:Select All props and figures, press OK: Select All of the above, press OK.  

But get SceneFixer too, it does so much more!

------------------------WRONG ----------------- information Kalypso!!!!!!!!!!

changeGamma changes gamma on ALL textures of a figure ort a PROP if you select by figure or prop.
That is NOT what is needed.

Only drive maps need GC of 1
Color maps need a GC of 2.2

In short : B&W maps need GC 1, bump, displacement, transp,  specular maps - and masks
Color Maps need GC 2.2

But I forgot something in my above post.
Rendering with IDL and GC 2.2 (as you should always do) needs an exta step.

Remove "Light emitter" in the hairs properties tab.

Or as all hair has build in specular in the diffuse maps,  the to change end user would have remove all specular from all hair diffuse color maps. A never ending story.

Leave "Light emitter" OFF in all hair properties palettes.

For dynamic hair; Leave Light emtter OFF for the scullcap and for the hair.

Happy Posering
tony

It makes no mention of color textures, just bump, displacement, transparency and instead of choosing each one separately you can choose "All of the above"  Notice I didn't say choose "All materials".

And besides I was just following your advice from this post:  http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2863424&page=2#message_4039853

"Set GC to 1 for all textures that go into

• Transparancy
• Bump maps
• Displacement maps
  here GC has to stay at 1"

has anyone ever mistaken a render of human subject as a photo?

Quote - has anyone ever mistaken a render of human subject as a photo?

Well I got very close once but it was in a book (Femme Digital by Michael Burns, the artist was Alceu Baptistao and it was called Kaya, page 173 if anyone has the book.)  although it was about digital art and I thought the render was actually a picture until I studied it further.  Other than that no, but I am not sure if this is the aim for very many people.  If I want photo quality I use a camera. 

Quote - If I want photo quality I use a camera. 

Riiiight, you just happen to have on hand real nude models with swords and an actual temple in your backyard so you can just run out and snap a photo? How do you photograph something that doesn't exist? The whole point of renders which look like photos is that you can create an illusion of reality.

The movie industry uses cameras all the time, but they also use CG when they want to include stuff which can't be photographed (or filmed) because it doesn't exist.

photos have a lot to do with the photographer too  skill/talent/study/equipment/photogenic model. though supposedly, a talented photographer should make anybody photogenic.

Quote - has anyone ever mistaken a render of human subject as a photo?

Well, there are a lot of scenes in movies that people don't assume to be digital but actually are.

It's a hard question for me to answer, as I look at a lot of CG and game art already knowing it is digital.  There's little chance for it to fool me.  I'd have to see it used somewhere unexpected and in a manner that didn't call attention to itself.  So, perhaps we've all been fooled at some point already by a photorealistic rendered person.

Quote - The eye-shader EZSkin creates doesn't look good with any eye-texture.

Show me a good one that I'm allowed to use and I'll include it in an EZSkin update :-)

HeHe, sorry, but that was an unfortunate phrasing error as English isn't my native language.

I meant: "Doesn't look good with every texture (that is out there)."

Especially eye textures come in a huge variety of shades to fake SSS, so it's difficult finding the right one.

Still, I did a lot of tweaking to EZSkin, mainly to improve OpenGL performance/quality without loosing SSS final render quality.

I'm happy to send you examples to have a look.

Sorry again. :-)

I'd like to have full control of the parameters in the blinn node, please. :)

Btw, I absolutely hate GC but PoserPro 2012, at least on my machine, doesn't render a good image without it turned on. So I have to use it.

Quote - > Quote - If I want photo quality I use a camera. 

Riiiight, you just happen to have on hand real nude models with swords and an actual temple in your backyard so you can just run out and snap a photo? How do you photograph something that doesn't exist? The whole point of renders which look like photos is that you can create an illusion of reality.

The movie industry uses cameras all the time, but they also use CG when they want to include stuff which can't be photographed (or filmed) because it doesn't exist.

OK I apoligise if you think I was trying to be critical of all the 3d artists here, that was certainly not my aim. Yea, your right it was a flippant answer and I should have been more precise. 

I do accept your point and, as I do a great deal of Sci-Fi renders, that is clearly not possible with a camera but then I am not looking for photorealistic but more a 'believable' scene.  If someone does make a historic or future scene, or any non real world situation to be photorealistic it would be great and I would applaud the creator.  The fact is that almost all the renders I see where people are trying to be photorealistic are actually of people and with many my first question is why?

Then again as a member of a camera club for many years I know nude models are not really that scarce and neither are swords.  Temples are more difficult but I could use a stock photo or one of my own of from another field trip.  So if I wanted such a picture I might use the camera, fact is though I don't want such and image either photographic or rendered.

I also remember the time when I was dodging photos and adding clear skies to a picture taken on a dull day and that was using a darkroom and four dishes of chemicals.  It was a photo but was the image real  ?Any sort of image manipulation tool makes that seem childs play today so how many photos are real but I digress.

These days I spend more time doing renders than using the camera so I do understand what is possible with software and admire those that have the skills to take it to the limit.  I still enjoy photography though and often see a scene that I might be able to use in a render, usually as foreground peice or backdrop. 

In truth I guess my flippancy came from the fact that I dislike the idea of aiming for photo realism as a goal rather that what you are trying to say with a render.  That is just my view and each to thier own of course.

Quote - has anyone ever mistaken a render of human subject as a photo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6R6N4Vy0nE&feature=share

This real-time tech demo is really close to climbing out of the valley, so to speak.  Only big giveaway is when he opens his mouth...  (Lighting the inner mouth seems to be a huge challenge!)  My brain was all too ready to believe this was real until he began speaking. 

Moogal, that's pretty much the most photorealistic animation I've ever seen so far. One step closer to the Holodeck, I guess. ;-)

Yeah, the teeth/mouth (And ear/head seam) are still a giveaway, but the rest is definitely peeking out of the valley for me.

To think that Poser could do that, too (Not in real time, of course) if only we had figures like that.

Quote - To think that Poser could do that, too (Not in real time, of course) if only we had figures like that.

If they keep improving the preview, we may eventually get there.  Most users seem to do high-res print work and won't settle for the compromises of a "real-time" renderer.  I'd love to be able to export a Poser scene to something like UE4 or Crytek's Cinebox to render in realtime.

Quote - I'd like to have full control of the parameters in the blinn node, please. :)

Btw, I absolutely hate GC but PoserPro 2012, at least on my machine, doesn't render a good image without it turned on. So I have to use it.

Have you tried turning GC off and use Tone Mapping? It's in the render settings and for me it works great. I do set it on HSV Exponential with an Exposure of at least 1.8. For me this render feature really adds some live to my renders.

tone mapping is not the same as GC. I use the tone mapping along with GC because otherwise I have to edit Levels in photoshop afterward.

have a look at Artbee's tute on corrections......

This goes to show that it sort of comes down to taste as I like the images that I  have seen in this post that are without the GC more.