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
AWESOME - thanks!
But out of curiosity, how on earth could you know that?
(I mean, based on observation? You know, or ARE, the artist? I'm curious because I'd love to learn how to spot things like that myself.)
I have that light set, but haven't had a chance to use it yet - Smart Content failures make using DAZ Studio a real chore right now and an overheating CPU makes doing ANYTHING downright impossible. :shut:
I've also played around with REALITY for both DAZ and POSER.
Here's one example of lighting that blows my socks right off!
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#images/29090/
I know, I know.... Octane Render... but THIS is what I'm talking about - rich, vibrant colors with a bright scene that has highlights and shadows. Many (way too many) DAZ scenes I see posted here and there are dark (WHY SO DARK?) and flat/bland with not a lot of highlight balanced with shadow - in some scenes that might be appropriate, but in most it is just bland. I see a lot of these flat, lifeless images and try to be polite and not say anything at all, but inside my head I am SCREAMING "WHY SO DIM AND FLAT!???" but the images like the one above brings peace to my soul and calm to my tortured artist's mind. I have a long way to go myself, but I've had a couple small successes. I think lighting makes or breaks a render.
And attached is another image that exemplifies the qualities I am talking about - color, light, tone, etc. There's a soft quality to the light, a smooth quality to the color, it has light and dark and it is rendered in the FireFly render engine.
How can I get these kinds of results with DAZ?
(I know we're teetering on derailing this thread, but we are still talking about differences in Poser and DAZ...)
Yes! This is my one complaint against Daz Studio 4 thank you! :) I've toyed with lights, surfaces, and still fall out flat when my renders are concerned in Studio. And the renders take forever, but a render in Poser with similar light and surface settings can take half the time and look quite a bit better right out of the box.
Everyone calls me crazy when I tell them this.
Studio would be a better program in my opinion, if only the rendering engine were something more.
Yes! This is my one complaint against Daz Studio 4 thank you! :) I've toyed with lights, surfaces, and still fall out flat when my renders are concerned in Studio. And the renders take forever, but a render in Poser with similar light and surface settings can take half the time and look quite a bit better right out of the box.
Everyone calls me crazy when I tell them this.
Studio would be a better program in my opinion, if only the rendering engine were something more.
So you keep saying - but I can't get a decent render out of Poser - it really is down to the user, both have good rendering engines, just because you can't get a good render doesn't mean that the renderer is useless.
I wasn't dogging DAZ's render engine - I said I have seen some amazing renders, but want to know how *I* can make amazing renders with DAZ? :)
For me, everything changed in Poser when I started using Colm's IDL Studio lights from RDNA. It all just clicked after that. I'm looking for the lights that will change everything for me in DAZ. It's just a riddle I haven't solved yet.
Scorpio64dragon, do you have DAZ lights that you'd recommend?
AWESOME - thanks!
But out of curiosity, how on earth could you know that?
(I mean, based on observation? You know, or ARE, the artist? I'm curious because I'd love to learn how to spot things like that myself.)
I know the promo artist and know which lights the artist tends to use. Also, many RMP pages will list the items used. Some are one the description tab, some are on the editorial tab, some are listed in the promo credits and others in the other item tab. In the case of Danielle, it's listed on the description below the product blurb.
Because I do promos and other render work I can look at a Poser render and have a fair idea what type of lighting was used. DS is harder because I don't use it in everyday work and don't have the time to put into it's lighting set ups.
:red: I usually pay closer attention to the promo credits - especially with such gorgeous renders! Thanks for pointing it out - Valeria for v4 Wishlisted! I am equally stunned by the beauty of the Danielle character as the quality of the lighting and color in the render.
Once I asked a Rendo artist how she got such amazing results with her lighting and she said, honestly enough, "I just fiddle with it until it looks good. It's always something different depending on the character and elements." Fair enough, but I was really hoping for something I could buy or learn for myself. :)
What types of renders do you normally do?
Are there any light sets you find that work better for you than another?
Any version of Poser that you found gave you better lighting than others?
Knowing you are using a biased render engine, how much reality are you aiming for or doesn't it matter?
...having in RL experience theatrical lighting, I find the basic Daz lighting system to be a lot more intuitive to set up. I've tried working with lighting in Poser and find the controls to be somewhat more complicated to use. True, the Firefly engine can render more quickly, even when using AO and other lighting enhancements, but, I find setting up the lights to be more of a bother.
No matter which engine is used, render times are adversely affected by different factors such as transparency maps, subsurface scattering, reflectivity, volumetrics, and ray bounces/trace depth. Render time is also affected by hardware specs as well. A fast multicore/thread CPU, more memory (preferably tri or quad channel), and a high memory bandwidth between the RAM sticks and CPU, will definitely help to minimise the time.
In a scene I am currently working on I have a fair amount of transparency with reflection and refraction (large water plane) using a ray depth of 12 as well as a volumetric camera. A 900 x 600 test render takes about 30 min which I do not consider all that long. On the other hand, rendering with Reality/Lux can often take upwards of a day (or more) in some cases, to me that is "extreme". However that is the price to pay for the most "realistic" results if that is where one's interests are.
One of the my favourite features of the Daz lighting system is you can view through a light as if it were a camera making aiming lights a breeze. Really could have used that when I was working in theatre, would have saved a lot of scary climbs up into the flylines.
...my 2zł worth.
Actually, I ultimately strive for qualities as seen in the Danielle promo!
Poser Pro 2012 seems the most stable for me with everything from outdoor scenes to V4/M4,Genesis and Genesis2 portrait scenes using DSON. My image, 'The Awakening' is currently in the DAZ home page lineup and was done with Colm's lights. But here are a couple of my other images to show what I typically do. Most are using Colm's IDL Light Studio, but not all.
And three more for variety. All of these are with Poser's Firefly render engine. If I could crack the lighting in DAZ Studio to get results like these I'd probably just use DAZ Studio - I LOVE LAMH, and Genesis!
I also struggle to get good lighting in Poser, while DS seems much easier for me to get the results I want (actually, Carrara, Lux, Octane, Maya, C4D are all easier for me to get good lighting than Poser). But this is probably a perfect example of programs that are difficult for one person may be quite intuitive for another.
Gogger - Have you tried any of the Photo Studio products from InaneGlory? I find it incredibly easy to get good results using it. I did the image in this link (http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#images/18391) using Photo Studio (1) with some modifications to the lights, if this is the type of lighting your looking for, it might be worth checking out (it uses area/mesh lights, so it does render slower). The attached image was also done with Photo Studio.
Gogger those are wonderful examples btw. :)
Also I cannot state enough that I have my opinion, and it is just that, a flat out opinion that does nothing to affect any one else's opinions. Some prefer Studio, some prefer Poser. Me personally Studio fails to give depth and that is what I am trying to work out, there are light sets in the marketplace that I have in mind to purchase and I have found tutorials that give me some help but for some reason I cannot get the same effects that I even had in Studio 3 Advanced with 4.
I go for a moodier look in my renders and Studio seems to make things crisp and bright, no matter the shadows or surfaces used. And if I try to darken it just looks flat.
Which is okay I always have luminescence and other scripts to use in my post painting program to get the effect but I would love to be able to get that look in Studio before I take the image to post work.
I'm not trying to tell anyone not to use Studio because of the render engine, but my experience tells me that it is not for me and I would love to see improvements. Daz could forgo the continuous figure changes for a bit and work on the program itself, I would rather pay for a whole new Studio program then upgrade my Poser honestly.
;)
Thanks DustRider, I'll have a look at those.
I know BOTH render engines are VERY capable of producing AMAZING results. But it is a formula of subject textures/shaders/materials, as well as lights (and the myriad settings for each light) and then the render settings themselves that create a crazy happenstance of wonderful imagery when everything is *just so*. I'm guessing just having this light set, or that light set won't do it, but rather when paired with just the right render settings magic will happen. So far, I'm still working on the spells. ;-)
The second image below was the one where I thought I 'cracked' the secret of Poser lighting. All my subsequent scenes have been far better than the ones prior since then. I've saved the lighting scene out and even call it the 'Alva Lua Studio' since the character is Alva, the hair is Lua Updo and it is a portrait studio type setting.
The male below is David 5 in Poser Pro 2012 using DSON. No complaints here!
The bottom image shows you don't need high contrast, but there is light evident here, muted to emphasize her skin pallor, but still indicated in the eyes.
Thanks!
I agree about opinions. I, in no way, mean to disparage EITHER software. I just want in on the secret to great images in DAZ Studio!
Thanks!
I agree about opinions. I, in no way, mean to disparage EITHER software. I just want in on the secret to great images in DAZ Studio!
Yep, same here.
Right now I'm really digging deep to find that secret, I finally (and I cannot stress that enough) got my M4 characters transferred over to Genesis correctly and now I want to get to work but I've spent days trying to figure out the render settings and am left quite perplexed. ;)
This is a good example of WOW! in DAZ rendering/lighting. I like the lighting here! Anyone know how *I* can get my DAZ Studio renders to look anything like this? Is it pure custom lighting? Some specific light set? What are the render settings? I don't even care too much about render times, I want a beautiful image and am willing to wait. I'm willing to learn. I'm just not willing to flail about endlessly hoping for a happy accident of settings.
I admit I need to spend more quality time snuggling with DAZ Studio and some lighting technique training (have it, watched some, need to watch more). If I get what I'm after just once, I can play with it from there. Maybe I'm just being too impatient with myself and DAZ. I KNOW I'll get there eventually. This promo image is proof that where I want to go is a place I can get to. :-)
Camera DOF, and probably Advanced Lights, methinks.
Age of Armor's Advanced Lights work very well with the Subsurface shaders, and also have other options your regular lights don't have.
I would also recommend Inane Glorys light sets.
Direwrath you keep saying its just your opinion and no program is better etc etc , but then say if Daz improved the rendering engine DS would be improved, you are consistently blaming the program because you cannot get good results and those are the comments I have issue with.
Hi,
I dont know if my last post just disappeared because of a page refresh or if it is waiting for moderator's approval... I will briefly write the ideas I was supposed to write if I remember them correctly. My apologies if 2 messages come with similar content...
Daz studio uses 3Delight which is an excellent renderman compliant renderer, many professionals are in fact using Daz studio for setting up .rib files since it is free and does the work well. So under my point of few there is not technical constraints to achieve results similar than those in poser.
Please note that lights are not the only factor, Poser uses a very exaggerated subsurface scattering method, and very special render defaults, so in order to achieve the same results in Daz you will probably have to edit the shader a bit and play with the more advance render settings.
Both programs are made for the same purpose but they are different in terms of features and workflow. The first one I used was daz, but after trying out the other one I have to use them both.
Here's a render geaturunring the Nidale-character for G2F. It's using Age of Armour's Advanced Distant&Ambient; lights, and the light's SSS settings. The first render has no camera DOF, the second has a very narrow camera DOF.
Granted, it's not great art, but with a bit more time spent tweaking the lights&shadow; options, you might get closer to what you are aiming at.
Actually, I ultimately strive for qualities as seen in the Danielle promo!
Poser Pro 2012 seems the most stable for me with everything from outdoor scenes to V4/M4,Genesis and Genesis2 portrait scenes using DSON. My image, 'The Awakening' is currently in the DAZ home page lineup and was done with Colm's lights. But here are a couple of my other images to show what I typically do. Most are using Colm's IDL Light Studio, but not all.
...I just find the Poser "light sphere" to be very unwieldy to work with. Again that is a personal thing as Poser lighting is based more from a photographer's rather than a stage designer's POV. This is also why I don't like using IDL or Lux Render as the lighting mechanics seem so "foreign" to me. I've done some pretty amazing stuff with theatrical lights which is why the basic Daz (and AoA's Advanced) light system feel so much more "natural" to me than Poser's lighting setup.
IDL is not the "be all and end all" of lighting, especially if you like giving your final rendered scenes a more "personal" touch. For myself, I loved the look and feel that LDP2 gave my scenes. I knew that without expensive pro grade software and render engines, truly photo real renders were just not possible, so I never really cared to go in that directions. Lux Render through Reality does OK for "hard" objects, but still misses the mark badly on skin and hair tones unless one does a lot of shader tweaking.
...I just find the Poser "light sphere" to be very unwieldy to work with. Again that is a personal thing as Poser lighting is based more from a photographer's rather than a stage designer's POV. This is also why I don't like using IDL or Lux Render as the lighting mechanics seem so "foreign" to me. I've done some pretty amazing stuff with theatrical lights which is why the basic Daz (and AoA's Advanced) light system feel so much more "natural" to me than Poser's lighting setup.
IDL is not the "be all and end all" of lighting, especially if you like giving your final rendered scenes a more "personal" touch. For myself, I loved the look and feel that LDP2 gave my scenes. I knew that without expensive pro grade software and render engines, truly photo real renders were just not possible, so I never really cared to go in that directions. Lux Render through Reality does OK for "hard" objects, but still misses the mark badly on skin and hair tones unless one does a lot of shader tweaking.
Hmmm... I didn't use the light sphere in any of the images I posted except the police car scene - that used the Yosemite set sold here. But all the rest just have one or another of Colm's lights (I know they are from the "IDL Studio" but I just used a front light, perhaps a rim light and sometimes a fill light - but there is no dome, nor wall, nor anything else. Most of those backgrounds are added in post with Photoshop.)
Looking at renders offered in defense of DAZ (sorry, don't mean that in a bad way) I think it boils down to SSS. The skin usually seems solid and chalky or something whereas Poser, over-SSS or not, provides skin that looks like it has tissue below with light playing through it. I really think it may be the SSS that makes all the difference. At least that gives me something concrete to start playing with in DAZ Studio, something to focus on to get the results I desire. I KNOW it can do it - I've seen the images, I just have to figure it out. Unfortunately 'fiddling about with shaders' in every instance of every scene won't be a happy solution. In Poser I just apply the Standard or SSS textures when setting up the character (I ALWAYS choose SSS) and don't have to play around in the material room or use special lights in order to get the look I'm after - if it is that easy in DAZ and I am just missing that point then I can handle that, but going in and tweaking settings on each texture in the scene after applying it would be a real bother. Tweak, test-render. Tweak, test-render. Repeat.
I wonder if any official DAZ Promo renderers could weigh in on what they use in some of the promos??? I'd have to go search for another example of effect I crave. (I've also harbored a small, sneaking suspicion that maybe some promos are actually rendered in Carrara, but honestly, I don't think I've seen a Carrara human skin render yet that pleases me like a good ol' Poser SSS render.
However, I think you may have identified another 'factor' in people's liking this or that - I am a photographer by experience and schooling and Poser lighting setups make perfect sense to me. I've never done any stage lighting and fumble a little bit in DAZ. It's not DAZ's fault, or failing - that's just me. If the two programs cater to two different schools of thinking then more power to them BOTH!
This DAZ Gallery image does not specifically say it is done with DAZ, but is closer to what I'm seeking - although it does not seem to have SSS in play - look at the edges of the ear. http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/images/30828/
These gallery images by Lyssophobe use Reality and/or Lux Render in DAZ and gets the skin better than most I've seen:
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#images/14221/
This one even talks about the skin settings in Lux/Reality:
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/images/14217
VERY NICE ?DAZ? lighting/render/skin, in my opinion:
(WHY? Look at the rim light along certain edges and contrasting shadows in other areas, look at the wide range of contrast values, look at the skin color and variations in tone, look at the richness of color)
http://www.daz3d.com/nigel-for-m5 This may be the closest in terms of light and skin quality I've seen for what I am after in DAZ!
http://www.daz3d.com/people/karma
http://www.daz3d.com/people/michael-6
http://www.daz3d.com/people/echo
http://www.daz3d.com/ly-kari
http://www.daz3d.com/ryuu-for-m5
http://www.daz3d.com/giselle-6-pro-bundle
http://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-wachiwi-and-aiyana-bundle
** I'd say I like most of the lighting in most of the big name character and their bundle promos (like Aiko 6, Giselle, etc).
These are pretty decent:
http://www.daz3d.com/tynashe-for-v4
http://www.daz3d.com/antheia-for-v5
http://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-tansy
http://www.daz3d.com/ly-locklyn
http://www.daz3d.com/tempest-victoria-4
http://www.daz3d.com/mindy-for-v4-and-genesis
But then this happens:
http://www.daz3d.com/delilah-bundle
I agree that DOF can have an amazing impact on the realism of an image, especially portrait shots!
Ok, Scorpio you seem to have problems with my opinion can you at least leave it at that? The programs have different rendering systems, so do other programs as well. I personally prefer the less bright look that Poser gives me and would have liked to have seen something more dramatic in the Studio side of things in a better way to get those results without having to tweak each and every surface, light, or shadow numerous times.
From a post above it was stated that the engine itself is what it is, that is just how it is made and not likely to change, and I can live with that, but then how am I to get the same look out of a render in Studio that can be achieved in Poser?
Believe it or not I am not a new user to these programs.
Though I have only been using Poser for four years now and have no problem getting good renders without having to tweak anything except the render settings themselves. I can choose pre made lights, aim them where I want them, put the figure in the image and it looks great.
It can be that easy.
But with Studio everything has to be tweaked or else they come out very sharp. This was my experience using DS 3 Advanced, and it was my experience using the Studio versions that came before. Since it was a free or better priced program I figured that was why the rendering engine did not get the great results. It is why I put away many more years of Studio use and bought Poser in the first place.
The renders like those that Gogger posted are exactly the reason why I still use Poser although I would prefer to use Studio but cannot for the life of me get the look I am aiming for.
I look for certain criteria in what I do, am not afraid of playing around with the program to achieve what I like, nor am I afraid of Photoshop but this is one thing that does put Poser and Studio apart from one another and for many this difference is the deciding factor in what program they use. Different people looking for different goals, some would prefer to stick with what they know.
I am trying to find a way to get an end product that I would like to see in both, so please stop trying to softly imply that I am daz bashing because that concept is really getting old and really only starts pushing threads in a bad way.
Do not take my opinion so personally.
I think the point he was trying to make was that you can perform the same tasks in Daz Studio, you just go about it a different way. For Poser's IBL, there's UberEnvironment. For IDL, there's the indirect lighting camera. Both render engines can give great results, but it's down to the artist to get the most out of them.
For you it's clear you're simply better at working in Poser's engine. For myself, despite having used both I find Daz's 3DL engine much easier and manageable. It's all down to personal preference. He wasn't saying that one is better than the other, nor that your opinion is wrong simply that your argument was based on the idea that one requires more work than the other to achieve the same results.
Truth is, I'm nowhere near close to the full potential either one can provide yet I'm still getting results I can be happy with. It's simply a matter of personal taste in the end, and less so about one being superior to the other.
...I've been working with Daz (and to a lesser degree Carrara) for about seven years now and still pushing to learn a lot of this. In addition to set and lighting design also I used to paint (oils primarily) and draw so I look at things from a painter's POV as well. Arthritis made it difficult to continue working with the traditional media, which is why I turned to 3D CG.
Photorealism is not as important to me as getting a more "painterly" (for lack of a better term) quality to the final rendered pics. I rarely do portraits, except as WIPs when working on a new character so again the photographic angle is not as important. With a camera, I'm more of the "point and shoot" school, looking to freeze a moment in time. Sometimes I "hit" it, most of the time no, but then that is more of a hobby to me than a passion like painting was.
Again, as it has been said by several here, everyone has their preferences. I started with Daz Studio because I was on a very tight budget and couldn't see dropping 250$ (Poser) on a 3D programme at the time when I wasn't sure it would be the right thing for me. Trial versions were really of little help when you don't have a handle on the basic concepts, 30 days is too short to gt a good feel. especially as in some cases, certain features of the software are locked out or hamstrung in other ways (like watermarking, limitations on render size, or even being able to save a rendered image to disk). Daz gave me the entire programme for nothing and a basic collection of free content to play around with (along with the old weekly freebies and freebie vault) so I could actually create scenes while learning the ropes.
I have Poser Pro 2012 (got it at a very nice discount when I was still employed) but as I mentioned, pretty much only use it for the material and cloth rooms. I do like the Queue manager and the ability to render in background (something Daz needs to consider as a built in feature for the next full version update). However,I am hooked on Genesis/Genesis2 as I like to create custom "dialed" characters and understand that DSON in Poser can be a pain to work with. The ability to mix countless morphs and shapes (including those from previous generations via the GenerationX/X2 plugin), just makes the Genesis platform so versatile. I'm sure Dawn (and whoever he male counterpart will be) will reach this point as well but at this time I do not have the resources to invest in an an entirely new figure mesh from the ground up.
So part of it for me it also comes down to economics.