SSS

[yossam]

This was a test................Poser supports SSS now and I wanted to see if there would be a difference if I exported the .obj's of the same Model to TG3. One of these has a material with SSS active, the other not. Can you tell which is which?

[cyphyr]

It should make no difference. If TG3 dose not support SSS (which it dose not) then the ability to import the effect is not possible no matter what program you use. You maybe be able to "bake" the effect in to an exported uv map but it would be lighting specific so I doubt its value.
Richard

[Andrew March]

Correct and I really would stay away from Poser figures, they are truely awful and the only thing you ever see them being used in is what I would call porn. I don't know of a single half decent artist who uses Poser these days, quite simply the shitest program available.

[AP]

Entirely a matter of one's personal opinion sometimes based on ignorance as I have many reasons to use Poser. Porn is not one of them. Just remember, it's all about the tools. If one studies anatomy long enough and knows how to set-up a scene, shaders, good themes, lighting...... then good art can happen. I have seen what has been done with Bryce turned into what reminds me of oil paintings to some extent. While it is true there is a lot of bad Poser art, it can be said that not everything that comes out of Poser is bad art and besides who gets to decide what is bad and good art? Abstracts that sold is the thousands for which I find unpleasing to my eye but for those that admire such themes, that is fine for them. Porn on the other hand is a issue of morality with me, not just bad art vs. good art. I draw the line there. Crappy art can be made with high-end software just as much as "Poser" can. There are both hobbyists who try and professionals in all software spectrum's.

[yossam]

Thanks Chris..............my feelings exactly. 

[Lady of the Lake]

Well, I think the right hand face looks better.  Is that the one?

[yossam]

The one on the left has SSS. It is very noticeable when rendered in Poser............TG3 not so much.

[Andrew March]

Entirely a matter of one's personal opinion sometimes based on ignorance as I have many reasons to use Poser. Porn is not one of them. Just remember, it's all about the tools. If one studies anatomy long enough and knows how to set-up a scene, shaders, good themes, lighting...... then good art can happen. I have seen what has been done with Bryce turned into what reminds me of oil paintings to some extent. While it is true there is a lot of bad Poser art, it can be said that not everything that comes out of Poser is bad art and besides who gets to decide what is bad and good art? Abstracts that sold is the thousands for which I find unpleasing to my eye but for those that admire such themes, that is fine for them. Porn on the other hand is a issue of morality with me, not just bad art vs. good art. I draw the line there. Crappy art can be made with high-end software just as much as "Poser" can. There are both hobbyists who try and professionals in all software spectrum's.

You might see it as personal opinion Chris but in fairness and not from ignorance as I did try Poser back when I started in CG some 17 years ago and used it for background characters up until 5 years ago. I can honestly say I have never seen anything come out of Poser that I would consider good, anatomically speaking it falls way short of the mark with figures able to produce the kind of twisted deformations that a Yoga master can only dream of. The lighting system is just plain awful and the shader system is considered archaic and basic by every studio I have worked with. As a hobbyist on a budget there are programmes available with a far better toolset which enable the user to create figures from scratch rather than relying on set of premade unrealistic characters. Even the galleries on smith micros website have maybe two or three images that I would consider half decent.

But each to thier own I suppose, one mans shit is another mans sauce.

[gregtee]

As Richard noted, unless TG has a specific subsurface shader, you're not going to get subsurface renders.  Subsurface is not an exportable geo attribute.

[TheBadger]

I think you can fake sss in TG to a significant degree. But I did not find the methods suitable for a humanoid figure. But for alien landscapes and fantasy it worked pretty well. http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,15056.0.html
The example is raw but refinement is more than possible.

I understand the desire to have good looking human figures in a render. For stills the human figure rendered in TG can make an image sing.

But in side by side comparisons of SSS on and off from other soft, I often prefer the render without SSS. Not sure if that is because the SSS does not work all that great, or the user did not know how to make it look good.

[Andrew March]

I completely understand the need for characters in a render but I think the point here is to remember that TG2 or TG3 are not all encompassing packages but as I have said before just part of a toolset and should be used as such. You need other tools to make the renders really stand out, from dedicated 3d modelling programs to other renderers and ultimately compositing/video editing packages to round everything off.

I never use a single package to create an image these days. My main tool is still Lightwave, I use Terragen purely for Landscapes, models are comped in later in Lightwave and post production adjustments made in After Effects.

Thinking that Terragen can produce everything well in a single render is narrow minded and you would be closing yourself off to a whole world of possibilities.

[gregtee]

While its true that relying on a single render engine to accomplish everything is probably foolish in most instances TG could really shine that much more by adding a true subsurface shader.  Most plants have at least some aspects of their anatomy that would benefit from this, particularly grasses and succulents, and since these are the types of things users of the software might routinely incorporate into their scenes, it should be supported as it would add a lot more realism to renders of vegetation that often look, at least to my eye, flat often times. 

Sure you can always export the geo and render it elsewhere and comp it in your app of choice, but that slows down the workflow amd complicates a process that's easily avoidable if the shader attribute wasnt missing to begin with.

Anything that allows the user to minimize the need to move between various packages to achieve the end result is a good thing.