Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Its about the results at the end of the day. Good tools are nice to have. DAZ Studio is a good tool. Yes there are more feature rich tools out there and if you can afford access to them then more power to you. BUT without hard work the most feature rich tool will not enable you to eclipse the monetarily challenged hobbyist working with GIMP and a used wacom table got at a yard sale if the hobbyist has put in the hard work and you have not.
For my part, every one of the instructors I've had in the Entertainment Design track at Santa Monica College, has had nothing whatsoever dismissive to say when I tell them that my primary app is Studio. These are all people who work/have worked professionally in the animation or game development industries.
Mind you, they aren't *teaching* Studio. They are teaching Maya or ZBrush. But they are aware of it, and had nothing to say against it. (And may have used it themselves at some point.)
Frankly, people will probably stop looking down their noses at Studio at the point that expertise in Studio could get you hired somewhere. I'm not at all convinced that anything DAZ did would bring that about. And if they did, the changes would probably be things that few of us would like.
"Yes, the DAZ base model isn't unique, but it can be the basis of something just as unique as one sculpted from scratch in Maya or zBrush."
Sure, that's true, but then it begs the question (from a pro's standpoint), why would I use a DAZ model over any other base mesh out there, some of which are even free? Is the topology better? No. Is there anything about the mesh that makes it more suitable for sculpting? No. So there is no compelling reason for a professional 3d artist to use Daz Studio (in a professional workflow) other than maybe storyboarding. Especially so for a modeler since DS isn't even modeling software. Everything compelling about a Daz model is necessarily connected to DAZ Studio and its mass production generic style workflow. This isn't to say you can't get professional quality results using Daz. IMO, this isn't the point. The point is, why would they even try? If one is doing 3D animation for a living, time is money. To get professional quality work using Daz would take much more time than if they used the proper tool for the job. Which means they lose money or they lose the job. So, while I agree that the skills of an artist can overcome tool deficiencies, I see no reason why a professional 3D artist would purposely use a tool that is less effective, cost them more time, and has more limitations than the other tools in the market. It's like working with one arm tied behind their back. What does DAZ need? It needs a complete overhaul to bring its animation capabilities up to professional standards. This is probably not in Daz3D's best interest. Animators are not their core market. But they did acquire a little piece of software called Carrara. Wouldn't it be nice if they turned that into their animation powerhouse for all Daz assets?
You were seeking to hire a professional rigger
to rig a Daz model for Maya and he rejected
the work based on his personal disdain for Daz meshes??
I didn't get the feeling that he disdained Daz meshes (but it's hard to judge feelings in from an email), but rather that it was a rather average, generic job. This is understandable. He is a professional at the top of his field. For a rigging artist, the mesh is their medium. The final output of their work will be expressed through it. If I were his caliber of talent, I wouldn't want to have a random Daz mesh in my showreal. It's as simple as that. I don't think he had any particular hate for Daz meshes, but rather he saw it as average and unexciting and no advantage from taking the job.
Oh.
I thought this was going to be a thread about what people wanted to see Daz do next. LOL! Personally, I'd like to see the store more organised so I can find what I'm looking for. It's a little frustrating to type the name of the product you want and have the product not even show up in the list of stuff from the search. Try to search out any figure, for example. That figure will not be in the list. Stuff for that figure, but not the figure itself. Frustrating. I have better luck finding the product searching through Google. What's that tell ya?
But...
It is interesting to me to see that those who use Daz, Poser, etc STILL feel like they have to defend their use of a particular software to create their art even after all these years. Some things truly do endure and never change, I guess.
This! Now I'll crawl back to make some more Poser Art;)
Interesting discussion. So, I am fairly certain that Photoshop is considered a somewhat professional piece of software. I generally use Studio and Photoshop for my work. Does that make me half a professional?
..some of us look at the idea of "professionalism" somethng more than just making money.
"feel free Ask DrZap or Bryan Steagle about this as they have more experience with Maya than Myself"
I didn't find a problem with the twist bones. I just didn't include them in the characterization and Motionbuilder accepted it. Also, I find working with the facerig in G3 a dream! It is much more easier to rig since the bones and weight painting have already been done for me. Just add controls and you are ready to rock. You only need to make two rigs: one for G3M and for G3F and then use blend shapes to transfer a different character to the rig (All Daz models of the same generation have the same vertice order). Once more, I figured out a way to use Daz's "patented" JCMs on my figures in Maya. It's so basic, I wonder why it hasn't been thought of before. So with a little bit of ingenuity, I can take advantage of the benefits of Daz Studio without being burdened with actually using the software.
I wasn't specifically talking about animation; I was talking about the "unique models" part of things and pointing out that even the guys doing multiple million polygon models start with very low polygon counts.
I am aware of that, but it likely won't be a Daz low poly model. Why? Because it is too much trouble with no benefits If a modeler wanted to use a Daz mesh as his base, he would have to install Daz Studio and export the .obj before he could begin to work. Why would they do that when they could easily get a base mesh from any number of sources without installing extra software and doing .duf conversion. Dash meshes are like Big Macs. Its a package deal. Nobody goes into McDonalds and buys a burger only to separate the two all beef patties from the special sauce, lettuce and cheese so they can use the meat in their spaghetti. They just go to the meat market and buy some beef.
Well if DAZ is ever going to take realistic one frame renders to the next level they have to implement physics solution and quite a bit of animation too because that's just a specialized compartmentalization of general physics so it's a matter of how much, after that is done, is needed to make DAZ a competive animation solution? iRay is clearly capable of rendering frames and will get faster with improved HW, improved SW and more expansive memory available.
It's like what Thomas Edison said about what his customers wanted was a faster horse not a car.
I mean, I will take a horse that can go 100 mph.
I see DAZ models in the public square all the time. Often on news shows, health documentaries, and infomercials. I.e. where presumably the costs need to be kept low and the work needs to come out quickly. These are professionals working on professional projects. I can usually tell it's a DAZ base figure because they often don't even bother to morph them (for example if its a documentary about the brain they may show a transluscent M4 - unmorphed - as a camera rises to the head where the brain can be seen inside, firing away with neural impulses). Was this done with DAZ studio or just DAZ models? Probably the latter. But that doesnt mean that somewhere in the pipeline unseen to us Studio was used.
Poser was originanally envisioned as a tool to help artists with their work, allowing them to pose a somewhat anatomically correct figure and use that as a reference for their sketches / paintings. DAZ arose as a direct competitor and initially mostly a clone of Poser's functionality. Seems it's primary purpose was to entice people into 3D so they would buy the models DAZ made. The old "gilette" business model where they gave you the razor for free and then made a fortune selling you blades for decades on end. So yeah, they were targetting the hobbyist but in this thread there have been many examples of pros, as well as some comments by artists I consider every bit as good as the best pros (lookin at you, Stonemason) so it's already in use by professionals. For example big studios are not making big budget movies with DAZ studio but they may be making concept art for the film with it. I'm an engineer in the aerospace industry and we have budgets that are really large. But still we consider free or low cost tools because if they offer what we need they offer great value that can be applied in other areas of the project. So I doubt top pros dismiss DAZ because their so elite that they don't care about cost.
In a broader sense though, I'm not sure I want DAZ to be the next Maya or C4D. It's free now and I like it that way. I'd hate to see it become a $2500 suite for pros and push us mere hobbyists out of the market.
I see DAZ models in the public square all the time. Often on news shows, health documentaries, and infomercials. I.e. where presumably the costs need to be kept low and the work needs to come out quickly. These are professionals working on professional projects. I can usually tell it's a DAZ base figure because they often don't even bother to morph them (for example if its a documentary about the brain they may show a transluscent M4 - unmorphed - as a camera rises to the head where the brain can be seen inside, firing away with neural impulses). Was this done with DAZ studio or just DAZ models? Probably the latter. But that doesnt mean that somewhere in the pipeline unseen to us Studio was used.
Poser was originanally envisioned as a tool to help artists with their work, allowing them to pose a somewhat anatomically correct figure and use that as a reference for their sketches / paintings. DAZ arose as a direct competitor and initially mostly a clone of Poser's functionality. Seems it's primary purpose was to entice people into 3D so they would buy the models DAZ made. The old "gilette" business model where they gave you the razor for free and then made a fortune selling you blades for decades on end. So yeah, they were targetting the hobbyist but in this thread there have been many examples of pros, as well as some comments by artists I consider every bit as good as the best pros (lookin at you, Stonemason) so it's already in use by professionals. For example big studios are not making big budget movies with DAZ studio but they may be making concept art for the film with it. I'm an engineer in the aerospace industry and we have budgets that are really large. But still we consider free or low cost tools because if they offer what we need they offer great value that can be applied in other areas of the project. So I doubt top pros dismiss DAZ because their so elite that they don't care about cost.
In a broader sense though, I'm not sure I want DAZ to be the next Maya or C4D. It's free now and I like it that way. I'd hate to see it become a $2500 suite for pros and push us mere hobbyists out of the market.
Professional is a noun and an adjective.
Professional results means worthy of being sold- presumably by a professional, who is someone who sells their work or works as a seller, as I like to say.
Pretty much all these conversations go a few places.
1) Daz needs to do what they already do - better. Or...
2) They need to start doing something they don't do.
What I don't understand is how people can name a hundred programs that do XYZ BETTER than Daz, is entrenched in the market place, have established 'professional' reputations and still think Daz NEEDS, not even could or should, but NEEDS to somehow get to the back of that field, in that race and start running.
- Especially with all their other execution woes at just being 'all these things they keep being described as... you know the free thing for hobbyists to make cute little almost-art.
Daz has already smashed the quality wall for every type of "Poser Art" stigma. But still a decade later it persists.
Now, some think they should start adding "professional" aspects to their animation and such and THEN tackle the stigma and public perception for how Daz handles - all the stuff you keep saying they don't do well.
----------------
If they are Sooooooo many better options to do XYZ, why the heck are you still asking Daz to do it?
There's no field in anything where someone uses one tool for everything.
The best blade isn't found in a Swiss-Army knife.
...+1
What is your workaround for the JCM's ?
Any workarounds for the other FBX issues ? (I mean besides the roundtripping , obj or alembic, etc..)
For the actual topic, I think the next reasonable thing would be making dForce more stable. It's a nice addition and has lots potential, but it is very buggy and crash prone. The longer the animation (I mean count yourself lucky if you can get more than a few seconds) the exponentially higher risk of crash or explosion. It doesn't handle tight collisions or confined spaces very well . Maps are nice but actual pinning would help in some situations and areas. dForce "feels" like a pre release very early beta , or alpha testing right now. It's a next logical step because they can sell more "dForce compatible" outfits and so forth ($). Some of the typical suggestions that would be useful for end users probably don't quite fit into their business model, and there is very little gain from their perspective - but who know they might surprise.
Do you have more info on this Hexagon update? Very interested in this as I've been wanting to learn Hexagon but have held off since I thought it was abandoned.
What is your workaround for the JCM's ?
This is not the right thread to discuss this, but basically it involves using our knowledge about morphs in Daz and applying it in Maya. Maya treats morphs the same way as Daz. In Maya, they are called blend shapes. Daz's automatic JCM process can be duplicated in Maya with set driven keys. Once you understand these basics (I don't know how familiar you are with Maya), you can then see a few possibilities for automating JCM's using DAZ assets.
Any workarounds for the other FBX issues ? (I mean besides the roundtripping , obj or alembic, etc..)
If you mean the HD morph problem, it can be handled in the same fashion as JCMs. Using DAZ HD meshes in Maya is not a problem. Ask this question in the DAZtoMaya thread and I can give a more detailed answer.
"Do you have more info on this Hexagon update?"
The thread where this was mentioned is:
https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/3056276/#Comment_3056276
To save you some time wading through the various posts, here is what DAZ_Steve said:
"One of the big questions seems to be around what the plans are (and if there are any updates to) Hexagon. So let me chime in and answer that:
We currently have a new version of Hexagon in private beta, and expect it to be public beta (including DIM installers) within a couple of weeks. This new version has minor cosmetic updates and a lot of stability improvements.
We also have updates planned for Q1 2018 including (but not limited to) 64 bit support.
We also have more ideas for 2018 (and the future) and plan for Hexagon to be a key and growing component of our free offering to customers."
its just a word and you can do with it what you like
on the other hand this a good way to be misunderstood
Cool, thanks.
If this process ties the application of the blend shape to the rigging underneath, it's exactly the same as a JCM.
I think wolf359 has done stuff like this going to C4D.
Money isn't the only way to show that you exhibit professional behavior. I know folks that are just as professional as their paid counterparts are, but do what they do because they want to.
"I think wolf359 has done stuff like this going to C4D."
If I am not mistaken, wolf359 uses the .MDD format to transfer animation to C4D. This is similar to my approach but AFAIK his effects are only temporary. They only apply to the motion to which he is transfering. so he must perpetually use MDD to get corrective morphs (or any other morphs). I could be wrong, maybe he is using Xpresso expressions to connect them to his rig. The way I propose will allow me to be independent of Daz Studio once I have the JCMs. It is a one time process (per character) and it is permanent.
To me, professionalism is about what your produce, the level of care and attention to detail in the product you're producing, be it hobby or for gain in some way.
It is also about how you treat fellow professionals, hobbiests, customers and prospective customers - and those just curious.
... Doing something commercially does not make one a professional.
It is a commercial piece of software; how many of its users are professional is open to debate and subject to opinion. :)
It does make someone a professional, but it doesn't mean they act professional. The noun is narrower than the adjective.
Check the recent entries in the DS Change Log http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log#private_channel - there are, for 4.10.0.122, a couple of relevant-sounding entries:
Added options to FBX Exporter; “Base Figure Pose Only”, “Maya Helper Scripts”, “Maya Mental Ray Materials”
Extended DzFbxExporter script accessible API; added support for “doBaseFigurePoseOnly”, “doHelperScriptScripts”, “doMentalRayMaterials” settings
...