- This topic has 62 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, I happily admit I'm not a professional...
So I don't give a rat's a** about "professional standards". 😉
While I certainly DO aknowledge that meshes used in a professional environment need to be designed a certain way to best work using professional sculpting apps like ZBrush or that equipping them with a complicated multi bone face amature makes them easier to animate by professional trained artists, there is a shocking discovery I made in my 20+ years of using Poser:
Poser is not a professional software and neither it's users are professional trained artists!
(And probably the same is true for Studio, isn't it?)*
So what Poser needs (And probably Studio, too), is NOT a figure that sticks to (ever changing, btw) "professional standards", but an "idiot proof", easily accessible, highly versaitle mesh that still delivers "good enough" results while running on sub-par equipment.
Unless you try to split your consumer base into a couple of "semi-Pro" content creators and a large pool of strictly consumers, who are unable to do anything on their own except clicking on the render button.
*
So my all-time favorite mesh is still the original Michael 1/2/Stephanie mesh with its elaborate, but highly unprofessional built in "muscle-topology":
CAREFUL: NUDITY AHEAD!!!
https://i.postimg.cc/L5JCH2CP/M2-Geometry-2.jpg
Where else get you that amount of "muscle goodness" for a mere 35.145 polygons?
Just by the flick of a dial?
How many times do you need to subdivide G9 with it's Z-Brush friendly "all non-destinct squares, no exceptions" mesh topology and how much additional load (and render time) will that put on the average users machine?
The mesh also responds beautifully to weightmapping or to Poser's own Morphbrush.
(I actually used to work with ZBrush when it was first released, but once the Poser Morphbrush became fully functional, I greatly prefer it's "real-time" WYSIWYG experience.
I don'T have to switch apps and I can create morphs and JCM's directly without having to wonder how the result will actually look.
Because I can see instantly how my work will look right inside Poser because I never have to leave Poser in the first place.Now, again, I've seen some wonderful face morphs made for G8 and G9 made using ZBrush, so I'm definitely not against the use of that tool by 3D artists who have both the money, the talent and have been properly trained using that tool.
But those outstanding face morphs would be just as easy to make using an otherwise more "hobbyist-friendly" mesh undernieath.Yes, elaborate HD body sculpts are easier to make out using a "blank canvas" mesh with non-distinct mesh topology like G9, but with a mesh like Michael 1/2/Stephanie, you do not need such an elaborate HD body sculpt in the first place.
But of course there is probably more money to be made when a customer has to BUY a nice looking muscle morph rather than allowing him to just spin a dial because that morph (and many others) have already been built right into the mesh.
So he can mix and match or modify it all by himself to his heart's content.*
It probably also flatters the ego if both content creators and users if they can claim to be working with figures that were designed using "professional standards".
Anyway, I greatly prefer the easy of use I get with the "non-professional" meshes and how well they respond to all my modifications.
And as I said in the past, I'm not striving for absolute photo#realism anyway, because ACTUAL photorealism is super-hard.
Even the professional studios still struggle with it.So if I actially wanted to go that direction, I definitely wouldn't want to persue it using Poser (or Studio) in the first place.
I'm happy about all the technical progress that has been made since the Poser 4 / Studio 1.0 days, but somewhere along the way I think we have lost more than we have found, or at least took the wrong turn somewhere.
This is a hobby. Perhaps even a sort of "lifestyle". Lol.
I don't want someone breathing down my neck, trying to push me towards "professional standards" for whatever reason he might have in mind.(BTW, the first thing a true professional is expected to do is CREATE A PHOTOREALISTIC HUMAN FROM SCRATCH ALL BY HIMSELF!.
If you can't do that, you have no buisiness lecturing anyone about professional standards, anyway.)And even if you aczually CAN do that, my hat's off to you, but I still prefer to stick to the meshes that GET THE JOB DONE in the most easiest and fastest way possible.
*
PS:
Erogenesis failed because his figure was way too complicated to use for the "average" Poser user, as well as it lacked all the "built in" mesh topology to make it more than a 20-something" girl of "normal" built.His "Lali's Bits" genitals for V4 were a lot more popular, though, but they also were very complicated to use. (Even though he made an Herculian effort to automate the whole she-bang, but, Poser being Poser, there was still a lot of manual adjusting necessary)
As I said, achieving realism in Poser IS HARD. 😉*
TL.DR:
I'm not a professional nor do I strive to ever be one. Why should I subjugate myself to meet "professional standards" when I already have the tools and developed the workflow to get me where I want to go?Here is a V4 Zombie morph I made just using the MorphBrush: (Face morph not by me)
WARNING: NUDITY AHEAD:
https://i.postimg.cc/4NjbmD2Z/V4-Zombie-WIP-Z.jpgI wasn't happy with V4's original "emascicated" morph, especially as it didn't properly fit over V4's own skelleton!
(assuming that the skeleton would be at least somewhat anatomical correct)So I subdivided her once, loaded the skeleton,, used some of her body morphs and started sculpting.
It's still a WIP, and I don't claim to be the world's best sculptor, but I do think it already looks better than what you can buy.
It also definitely was fun to make. 🙂(BTW, if some of those "ribcage" detail would have built right into V4's mesh like Michaels muscles are in the example above, I probably could have saved me even that single subdivision. My "ideal" Poser/Studio "hobbyist" mesh would be able to go from Bodybuilder to Zombie (and everything in-betwen) with just the turn of a dial.)
BUT...
I know that there is a similar Morphbrush tool available for Studio, even though it is probably not that elaborate as the Poser one right now.Wouldn't it be great to make your very own morphs RIGHT INSIDE STUDIO using a figure that is geared towards YOUR (the end users) needs, than having to buy a morph, render it once, get bored and wait for the next thing you can buy?
Yes, both strategies can co-exist.
There are probably plenty of Poser as well as Studio users who never have nor ever will even POSE a figure on their own.Yes, that's fine with me, as long as they have fun.
But this trend of trying to be "just like the professionals" drained all that "Do it yourself" spirit out of this hobby.
*
And if all I can use Poser or Studio for is to render pre-made content, I can just as well spend my time watching TikTok videos.
🙁
'So what Poser needs (And probably Studio, too), is NOT a figure that sticks to (ever changing, btw) "professional standards", but an "idiot proof", easily accessible, highly versaitle mesh that still delivers "good enough" results while running on sub-par equipment.'
You nailed the situation right there!
There are different market needs for different people, prioritising differing aspects.
Refining & fine tuning is what is required once you have assembled what suits your work flow, not throwing everything out the window & trying to force the 'new shiny latest & greatest' to do something it is ill set up to achieve.
@stahlratte, Thanks for that succinct summation of our hobby. You've pretty much nailed the status of where we stand now. I would like to mention however, that you can't just state that there's no pro's using the software. The definition of pro and amateur is that one makes money at it while the other does it for free or as a pastime. When I was still working, I used Studio and Blender a few times to make short animations and stills for use in training. I'm sure others have done similar. The folks making and selling items can be considered pro's too because they make a buck at it. I think the breakdown comes when you look at how much money and how many people use it and for what. The people making Disney animations laugh at Studio because it's in no way up to the task required by them. They consider it an amateur hobby; at best a toy. I'm sure that their meshes are wildly different to what Daz calls an industry standard mesh because they've made it for the software that they use.
I absolutely agree with you about 'just good enough'. Good old Vicky Fourpointtwoplusplus is still my main figure because of her massive and varied wardrobe and the fact that she loads quickly. I don't do closeups or bend her into knots and she's always dressed, so the problems that others talk about don't affect me. If I want realism I can always use img2img in Stable Diffusion.
Thanks again.
By the way....So what Poser needs (And probably Studio, too), is NOT a figure that sticks to (ever changing, btw) "professional standards", but an "idiot proof", easily accessible, highly versaitle mesh that still delivers "good enough" results while running on sub-par equipment.
Would love to see you mention that in Daz's forums and watch people go ballistic.
I think the reason Daz changed G9 to be more industry standard is to appeal to users outside of Daz. Hence also the whole bridges and licenses to use Daz content in games and other programs. The userbase of hobby renderers is in steady decline as other software has simply matured better (reallusion, blender, etc) with constant updates for more versatility. The improvements in AI and the ability to control AI output more and more is also a huge factor which makes people leave Daz rendering behind and simply generate their images instead.
Daz looks and feels outdated so the software as is won't win anyone over to switch anymore. The affordable 3D content library might, though. So it isn't stupid on their part to try to appeal to a new market. Their mistake as usual is that they half assed it and it lacks in promotion outside the Daz bubble.
- Popping back to the OP for a moment: One (of a few) reason(s) G9 is disdained has a lot to do with the lack of usable side tools.
Example: I recently bought a morph (with actual money), but it was a single body morph, and I only wanted the head. I was dumb and forgot to check for that. So, I couldn't create just the head morph from it to save my arse. No utility would touch it without blowing up the mesh (including the X-Splitter script). Trying to do it manually meant the eyeballs and mouth kept screwing up. Without a handy slice-and-dice utility for the head and body, I'm stuck. If it were a G8/3/2/1 single body morph, I could do it manually, or use a utility to whip it in half, no problem.
It's the same on lots of things - scripts fail to work, a lot of the goodies that were present for < G8 are not for G9 (including many of the naughty bits, I bet.) At least clothes and hair autofit. Also, creating a single morph dial by export/importing the .obj always (ALWAYS!) screws up the eyes and mouth if you do anything toon like.
So yes, it has kept me away from using it heavily.
-------------------
So what Poser needs (And probably Studio, too), is NOT a figure that sticks to (ever changing, btw) "professional standards", but an "idiot proof", easily accessible, highly versaitle mesh that still delivers "good enough" results while running on sub-par equipment.
That is the whole raison d'etre for Poser and DAZ Studio. Anyone that says otherwise with any passion is an idiot not worth listening to, or is just that painfully ignorant to the whole CG world at large.
If I wanted ultimate tools and control and pro results and etc etc I'd just use Blender or 3DS Max or Whatever (with all the right plugins) and be done with it. Problem is, it would take 4x as long just to create, composite, and render a scene. When I only want to have some fun making pretty pictures with it, that additional grind really is a damper on the fun factor.
When I only want to have some fun making pretty pictures with it
I think we've had that conversation before; we're really just playing dolls...digital dolls.
We are. I'll admit it happily.
Tried doing the eye thing again. Jay Versluis has a great tutorial on splitting head/body morphs, but it's the $#!@ eyes on G9 that won't cooperate. Drives me crazy.
Guess I'll put it on the backburner again until the mood strikes. :/
My next pension cheque says that we'll never see Studio 5. Tafi is just looking for a quick buck and will burn everything it can then sell off what's left, which will be nothing.
Finally getting to reply to those who commented, due to the fact that for weeks it took forever for the site to load; let alone post comments.
There are so many female characters to choose from from V4 right up to G8.
I feel that the male G9 characters are far more diverse and normal in facial appearance as opposed to their counterparts in earlier generations. Some of the G9 guys are not that picture perfect attractive himbo. Most have ordinary features and are really well made.
Yes; the female G9 models still look chunky in many respects, but I'm now okay with this, as there are so many ''beauties'' to choose from in the pool of earlier generations.
Everybody's preferences & workflow differ.
I prefer to avoid bloat, everything to be well optimised so it loads promptly & doesn't run like treacle.
It is nice to be in a situation where you are able to acheive what you wish.
Whether that uses the 'latest & greatest' or not is irrelevant.🙂
@eelgoo True. We're all looking for something different, but, even though I mildly altered my opinion on G9, my greatest wish with regard to the direction in which Daz should take, is to completely upgrade studio as it's long overdue.
@inversekinematics True. But what I would really love to see is a revamped Studio 5 that incorporates some of the functions of actual modelling software such as ZBrush.
I've tried my hand at modelling in Blender, but I find it hard to learn. ZBrush is far easier, once you get used to the interface.
In it's limited state DS does fulfill some peoples' needs.
Provided the relevant people's needs stay roughly the same, it is probably sustainable.
It really depends what you want to do with it.
I think the major issue daz has to fix is its lack of optimization.
Beyond that, it should really integrate more modern hair handling, clothing simulation, lods, fluid simulation and possibly a new render engine.
They could do all of that if, for example, DS5 starts using blender technology as a back-end (which is all open source) with a more modern Daz UI.
Inevitably, that will lead to developing Genesis 10 (which would also require all new shaders), but at least they would save up on the need to ever develop a new 3D technology, and just adapt the ones that will be released by the blender team.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
