Posr always looks shitty for the first few renders?
Upirium
Posts: 705
I am running Poser Pro 2012.
Before I ran 2010 for a while. I sucked for a little it but got better so I'm not sure about that one.
However when I installed PP 2012 things looked sucky for a while no matter what I did and then gradually started looking better but I never really changed the render settings that much.
I had to reinstall PP2012 and it did the same thing.
And then again, same thing.
And then...again, same thing.
Now I have moved it to a different computer. I checked the render settings on my old computer and they're lower than the settings I have on the new one but the renders aren't pretty like my other computer.
So does Poser do some weird thing, where the first few renders are shitty with a freshly installed Poser?
I will show you pictures from yesterdays render on the other computer and today's render when it's finished.
But the only render settings I have changed other than using the auto high level renders, is this:
Raytracing: 2
Radiance Caching: 50 (or is it irradiance caching?)
Pixel Samples: 4
Post Filter size: 1
Post Filter Type: Sinc, not box.
From what I remember of my other render settings.
Pixel samples: 4
Raytracing 2:
Post filter 2:
Sinc
Caching: 50
This is from yesterday:
Link removed
This is from today. Warning: nudity.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/0cc05daa67163690878d1fb13a611456/tumblr_mip5z0KYrA1r8y8hko1_1280.png
Help.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The difference in the renders you posted appear to be related to textures, lighting, and such. The only way to remotely make such judgements of quality would be to render the exact same scene with the exact same render settings on the two different installations of Poser. It's not remotely fair to compare these two to judge how one installation is rendering over the other.
The difference in the renders you posted appear to be related to textures, lighting, and such. The only way to remotely make such judgements of quality would be to render the exact same scene with the exact same render settings on the two different installations of Poser. It's not remotely fair to compare these two to judge how one installation is rendering over the other.
I've used that skin texture several times though. This is the skin texture on another figure rendered over on the other computer.
Graphic nudity though...
Link removed
When posting images with nudity please make sure that they are flagged on the host site and that the link requires that users have an account and get a prompt before going to the image - deviant Art galleries should allow this.
only 2 bounces?
-
my draft render settings
Pixel samples: 5
Raytracing 4:
Post filter 1:
Sinc
Caching: 100
min shade: .02
displacement on
-
production render settings
Pixel samples: 10
Raytracing 12 (if there is a lot of glass windows i go to the scripted settings and raise bounces to 20)
Post filter 1:
Sinc
Caching: 100
min shade: O
displacement on
shadows on
SSS on
if i'm rendering a lot of dark colors, i'll turn IDL on
Which doesn't change my point. If the scene is different and the lighting different, you can't compare them as being equal. Besides, I can't see how any software could get better or worse over time. Mechanical objects can improve in performance over time as they are "broken in". You can't "break in" software, however. I just changed computers and I only saw an improvement due to having more power to use higher render settings.
establishing new neural pathways in the m/b silicon? electrons having a wild party at the nuetron?
Morphic resonance?
Since I have little to contribute as far a render setting info, I will comment on one thing I have noticed... despited being told it is ridiculous, I have noticed performance decreases, tools that malfunction, settings that don't stay... little tiny bugs that occasionally show up if I've been using my computer heavily for long periods... as a matter of fact I've seen this occur in many computers... its like small things seem to get wonky over time. My response is to shut my computer off for at least an hour... off- not asleep. For these sort of issues, that always seems to fix it.
Most people don't seem to want to turn off their computers anymore... and I get people telling me turning it off is actually bad for the computer... personally I think that is a myth, but whatever.
i've seen computers that are never turned off, develop stiction of the hard drive.
lordvicore said:
There is nothing ridiculous about that. Restarting Windows can solve a lot of problems. One of the standard questions you get from most IT helpdesks is "Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
It shouldn't make any difference how long you keep it switched off, unless there is a cooling problem and something is overheating.
To go back to the original question, there are a couple of things not listed in the settings. Min shading rate affects the way textures are rendered (lower settings can increase the sharpness of textures but push up render times) and the gamma correction value has a major effect on the look of the render if you have it switched on.