Need some facts about Poser and Max
Michael Hunter
plug-in to access Poser files (i.e. Poser Pro Pack)?
BodyStudio sounds a lot like Character Studio except it's only $300. Has
anyone used that? How well does it export to Max?
Version 5 of Poser is ready but there's no Max plug-in for that version yet.
Since I plan on using it in conjunction with Max should I get version 4?
Thanks for the advice. Buying software is more complicated than ever!
Michael
Bexley
POSER and MAX are not happy together. Poser 4 and the Pro Pak advertised Max
compatibility, but it was always unstable. POSER objects are very polygon
heavy, and are doubled up (i.e. you have a man, then you have his shirt, then
his pants, his shoes, his hat, etc, etc... this adds a LOT of polygons). While
Poser objects export to Max okay (Max 3.1 and 4.2 anyway), they need to be
cleaned up and optimized. Pro Pack animations crashed Max constantly --
something Poser blamed on Max, but if you look at the way Poser works it's hard
to take them seriously.
If you can get Pirate copies of this stuff and test it out first (Kazaar maybe?)
then do so, because I discovered that the Pro-Pak promised cross-platform
compatibility, and DID NOT deliver. Worse, none of these features could be
tested in the Demo of Poser. This is one good reason why piracy is useful. Had
I invested in Poser and the Pro Pack on the specs the company published I would
be out $700 and have nothing to show for it.
Poser 5 vaguely alludes to these problems, but as far as I can see doesn't fix
them -- in fact it ignores them.
What is your project and why do you need this combination of software? Post
here, and you can get some good advice. Also try the other 3ds groups, and
maybe the binaries poser group too.
Be very careful!
--Bex.
--
Duckman - Oh Right! Like I was the only guy to laugh at the joke about
the gay midget with the cleft pallet.
(to reply direct remove "nothpam." from: bex...@nothpam.videotron.ca)
"Michael Hunter" <inte...@one.net> wrote in message
news:vg6u8v...@corp.supernews.com...
Michael Hunter
Maybe Poser isn't the way to go. I don't have a project (but that's a
different problem). I'm interested in making still images (animations maybe
later) with people. Lot's of them. Kids, old ladies, fat guys, sexy ladies,
gay joggers, etc. I've been making them by hand but it takes a while. I can
make a reasonable human in about 24 hours of work but that's just one. Let's
say I want ten people in a given image. I might want to use some of the
models again but mostly each image is it's own world and when it's done it's
done. Here's one of my images:
http://www.interactivetechnologies.net/making_of_mystery/index.htm
I sure would appreciate any advice you might have (or a real job).
Michael
"Bexley" <bex...@videotronnothpam.ca> wrote in message
news:YaMMa.50695$U02.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
Bexley
For still images (like the "Mystery" piece) Poser *might* be the way to go. You
could assembler your figures, export them to Max (as 3ds meshes) then apply
Bones or Character-Studio/Physique. I have used the CS/Physique approach myself
and the results are quite good: posable mesh with optimal polygon counts, etc.
You might also be able to use the many free-ware Poser items, without Poser
itself -- I think Poser is OBJ format, so you might be able to convert them?
Anyway, before deciding on anything do some Googling: "Poser to Max", "Obj to
3DS", etc. This will give you a grounding in what poser doesn't do -- like
export Bones for example. Also check out the Poser newsgroup and binaries group.
There are some exceptional models made for Poser -- "Ran Ran" is stunning -- but
they seem to be wasted on a platform that is too limited.
A couple of notes on "Mystery":
One of the problems I have with 3D imagery is that there is very little
experimentation in non-representation, so it's nice to see someone stretching a
little. I liked the Magritte/Chagal references (I worked on something similar
many years ago for a different project), and the "naive painting" qualities in
your background are excellent.
I would encourage you to pursue this direction. However, I think perhaps you're
to concerned with emulating the forms and not understanding the underlying
concepts behind the surrealists. You can't (I mean of course "can't") just
assemble art from other elements and expect it to work (except perhaps as a
parody). I see here you're throwing in Magritee and Chagall into one work and
I'm not sure why. For one thing, even though you removed elements, the
composition is still crowded. There are inconsistencies in the lighting (the
bg. and f.g. have nothing to do with each other) and, while you seem to have
many excellent individual components (the train on the aqueduct is beautiful),
the whole doesn't gel. Well, not for me.
I would suggest you spend some more time researching the surrealists and see if
you can get a feel for where they were coming from. You might also look into
"Dada" (Duchampe etc.) . And if you can, find some paintings by Jeffrey Smart.
His lighting is very similar to your train/aqueduct. While nit considered a
surrealist, Smart's work has an ambience which is quite odd...
Good luck with your work. Hope this is of some use to you!
--Bex.
--
-- For Lucky best wash, use Mr. Sparkle! --
(to reply direct remove "nothpam." from: bex...@nothpam.videotron.ca)
"Michael Hunter" <inte...@one.net> wrote in message
news:vg8jesq...@corp.supernews.com...
Michael Hunter
questions to make sure I understand:
>...underlying concepts behind the surrealists
>...spend some more time researching the surrealists and see if you can get
a feel for where they were coming from
My understanding of the movement is that it is based on the alternative
reality of dreams and other semi-conscious states. With this at it's sole
it's hard to talk about this art in the same manor you would a "rational"
image of other movements. There are symbolic overtones for example but as
you start to dig deeper those hidden meanings become more ambiguous rather
than coming more into focus so that you are always left chasing after the
mysterious meaning. At least that is how I understand it. Am I missing
something? or did I just not hit my mark?
>you're throwing in Magritee and Chagall into one work and I'm not sure why
De Chirico and Paul Delvaux - At this point I want to stay away from
situations that are... (my words are quickly failing me) that are far
fetched. I'm going after the atmosphere of Surrealism. If I had put a huge
burning eye in the sky that was crying tears that turn into swans, I'm not
sure anyone would see some of the subtle things in the image. Of all of the
Surrealists I personally get the biggest rush out of seeing De Chirico's and
Paul Delvaux' works. They have a sent - something is not right but it's not
easy to pinpoint what. Well actually I can - such as De Chirico's
manhandling perspective but that, and infinity, and long shadows are less
concrete than a floating castle or limp clocks or a woman's violin back.
Paul Delvaux puts a woman on a path. Far behind her is a rose bush. But the
bush aligns with her hair and her open hand just happens to be under a young
man - also in the distance - so that the young man is in her hand and her
hair is not hair it's a rose bush and then the space collapses on you and
all of this - all of this without a extra tall elephant or any other circus
tricks - it just happens as if by accident.
Thanks for Jeffrey Smart! He's an interesting artist. He reminds me a bit of
Hopper in that he can turn ordinary situations into something very dramatic.
Though Hopper tends to favor the light of the setting sun, Smart likes cold
stark light. Hopper also likes to hint at narratives a bit while Smart
ionizes his people - they become road symbols too.
>The composition is still crowded... there are inconsistencies in the
lighting... the whole doesn't gel
I've looked at this thing for two months. So I know I'm no longer seeing it
as other people do. I think you're saying that I should try to use less
lights (this one has about 19) and be more careful about variations of light
and dark within a lit or dark area - for example do you think keeping all
the stuff in the room closer together in hue, value and saturation would be
the solution to reducing the business of it? Are the big color areas - GREEN
grass, RED brick, BLUE sly just to much color contrast to keep the thing
unified? I honestly can't tell anymore. Is that where you are going with
your comments?
Bex, thank you for taking the time to give me a fresh look at what I've been
working on! And of course for the advice about Poser.
I'll be working on a new Surrealist image for the next IRTC competition.
Maybe you would be willing to pull it apart for me a month or so from now?
Michael
P.S. Do you have any work out there? (Two dogs meet - each sniffs the
other's ass. But if only one dog has an ass it's not at all fair now is it!)
Bexley
> I was a bit taken back by your review! I'd like to ask a couple of follow up
> questions to make sure I understand:
>
> >...underlying concepts behind the surrealists
> >...spend some more time researching the surrealists and see if you can get
> a feel for where they were coming from
> My understanding of the movement is that it is based on the alternative
> reality of dreams and other semi-conscious states. With this at it's sole
> it's hard to talk about this art in the same manor you would a "rational"
> image of other movements. There are symbolic overtones for example but as
> you start to dig deeper those hidden meanings become more ambiguous rather
> than coming more into focus so that you are always left chasing after the
> mysterious meaning. At least that is how I understand it. Am I missing
> something? or did I just not hit my mark?
I think you just didn't hit the mark (this is all MHO BTW). I'm not sure you
can "rationalize" any work of art -- at least not to the extent that explains it
entirely. Art (like life) is ambiguous, and ambiguity usually defies
rationalizing. For the same reason you can't just "plug in" symbols and expect
them to mean something (well, you can, but the meaning will be as random -- and
meaningless -- as the process).
Remeber, they were artists exploring the minds of artists. As artists they
start from an aesthetic perspective, not a rational one. They may be asking
themselves what it means, but they are first drawn to the "beauty" of the
subject. The idea that that beauty is ambiguous is all the more alluring...
More follows...
>
> >you're throwing in Magritee and Chagall into one work and I'm not sure why
> De Chirico and Paul Delvaux - At this point I want to stay away from
> situations that are... (my words are quickly failing me) that are far
> fetched. I'm going after the atmosphere of Surrealism. If I had put a huge
> burning eye in the sky that was crying tears that turn into swans, I'm not
> sure anyone would see some of the subtle things in the image. Of all of the
> Surrealists I personally get the biggest rush out of seeing De Chirico's and
> Paul Delvaux' works. They have a sent - something is not right but it's not
> easy to pinpoint what. Well actually I can - such as De Chirico's
> manhandling perspective but that, and infinity, and long shadows are less
> concrete than a floating castle or limp clocks or a woman's violin back.
> Paul Delvaux puts a woman on a path. Far behind her is a rose bush. But the
> bush aligns with her hair and her open hand just happens to be under a young
> man - also in the distance - so that the young man is in her hand and her
> hair is not hair it's a rose bush and then the space collapses on you and
> all of this - all of this without a extra tall elephant or any other circus
>
> tricks - it just happens as if by accident.
Wow! The Eye-Swan tears thing reminds me of those bad seventies Album covers!
The problem with surrealism is it lends itself so readily to abuse. The
DeChirico example is probably the most "dream-like" (for me, anyway -- never
dreamed of limp clocks, yes C-L-O-C-K-S, myself). Another good, non-painting
example is the dream sequence from Spellbound (the Hitchcock film -- a must
see) -- designed by Dali, and rebuilt by William Cameron Menzies (who has
elements of the surreal in his own work), it has that "dazzling sun-light"
quality...
In fact if you want to study the "atmosphere" you might look up some William
Cameron Menzies (production designer and director) films. As a production
designer he had a keen eye for the strange composition -- Invaders From Mars,
and Things To Come. Along similar lines, Gordon Willis (cinematographer) did
some odd work in "Paralax View" and "Presumed Innocent" -- his placing of people
in landscape is extrodinary.
But for all the symbols and anylization that can come of them (Dali and his
Ants!!!!!), they have a form that is beautiful. That's the common denominator.
That's what I mean when I suggest you're mising the point -- don't let the
components interfere with the form. The form is what we see first, the content
is what we appreciate. It's a difficult process to reverse-engineer: think of
the Roarsharch (sp) tests (those ink-blot tests "what do you see?"), just
because you see something in there doesn't mean the ink-blot is beautiful.
>
> Thanks for Jeffrey Smart! He's an interesting artist. He reminds me a bit of
> Hopper in that he can turn ordinary situations into something very dramatic.
> Though Hopper tends to favor the light of the setting sun, Smart likes cold
> stark light. Hopper also likes to hint at narratives a bit while Smart
> ionizes his people - they become road symbols too.
I never thought of him that way. Good point.
>
> >The composition is still crowded... there are inconsistencies in the
> lighting... the whole doesn't gel
> I've looked at this thing for two months. So I know I'm no longer seeing it
> as other people do. I think you're saying that I should try to use less
> lights (this one has about 19) and be more careful about variations of light
> and dark within a lit or dark area - for example do you think keeping all
> the stuff in the room closer together in hue, value and saturation would be
> the solution to reducing the business of it? Are the big color areas - GREEN
> grass, RED brick, BLUE sly just to much color contrast to keep the thing
> unified? I honestly can't tell anymore. Is that where you are going with
> your comments?
LOOK AT IT IN A MIRROR! Sorry to shout -- I wrote it that way so you wouldn't
miss it, not so you would be enraged by my rudeness.
Graphic design tool #1 -- a mirror that you look at all your images in. It will
completely change your perspective of the picture.
My first impression was that the train was perfect. I focussed on the train
immediatly, and the smoke it gave off, and the aqueduct it was on. There was
something very pure about the image and its presentation, and you stuck a
foreground over it that didn't need to be there. Again -- My Humble Opinion.
It's like two pictures stuck together that have nothing to do with each other..
>
> Bex, thank you for taking the time to give me a fresh look at what I've been
> working on! And of course for the advice about Poser.
My pleasure. This is all just MHO, so feel free to ignore anything I've said
:-)
>
> I'll be working on a new Surrealist image for the next IRTC competition.
> Maybe you would be willing to pull it apart for me a month or so from now?
> Michael
> P.S. Do you have any work out there? (Two dogs meet - each sniffs the
> other's ass. But if only one dog has an ass it's not at all fair now is it!)
I posted some stuff a few years ago and now I'm getting back into the work
again. Very slow progress, but I will be posting when I have something. I'm
actually exploring expressionism (in film -- Dr Caligari, etc.), and that's an
adventure.
Good luck