View Full Version : Interesting and expensive Poser "substitute"...

03 March 2003, 08:16 PM

Looks great... but 11,990$ USD ?????

03 March 2003, 09:56 PM
Looks kinda anatomically incorrect if you ask me; or maybe the 'model' for the template/generic male just happened to
have extremely awkward proportions -
Resolution-independant maybe, but Poser, while not fully customisable, is STILL more I mistaken???

03 March 2003, 11:02 PM
Those examples on that page don't look that amazing especially for that price! I agree with Atwooki, the anatomy of the model looks quite off too

03 March 2003, 11:46 PM
took the words out of my mouth, the price is outrageous for such a mediocre product :hmm:

03 March 2003, 01:14 AM
humm, that guy has some funny looking abs.

If they have their base technology down correct, it should be easy for the company to make tweaks to the models to improve their atomical correctness.

03 March 2003, 03:35 AM
the cost comes i believe in the new way they did the programming and scaling algorithms. I think in the right hands, that can be one seriously cool tool.... but geeez... the cost of that could easily put me through my first year @ UC Davis. =D

03 March 2003, 06:48 AM
Whoa :surprised I guess it could be cool, but you could buy XSI or Maya for that price :surprised

03 March 2003, 10:38 AM
you could buy 5 seats of maya for that

03 March 2003, 12:57 PM
the anatomy does look off. I think it would be good for digital doubles, but they should rethjink the price and but up a gallery if they can get anyone to buy it in the first place.

03 March 2003, 02:09 PM
Can't quite work out what's going on with this lot. If you think the characters here look bad, you should have seen the ones they had up eighteen months ago.. but then it was to be a whole system for growing muscles, fat etc,, this looks a bit too much like a mix and match me a character prog.

03 March 2003, 02:11 AM
USD$11,000?! This may not be up to the same standard, but a guy's developing a similar plugin for Blender called MakeHuman. It's $11,000 cheaper, too :p

03 March 2003, 02:22 AM
how is this any better than the human primitive that comes with XSI?

03 March 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Array
how is this any better than the human primitive that comes with XSI?
it is far more anatomically accurate than the ones in XSI and the XSI model paramters to adjust make transforms of the surface with little regard to anatomy, but rather linearily transform the geo point clusters, but, they are very useful for bg or starter models as they were intended.

I agree the reflex anatomy examples still look a little odd, and for such a detailed model the fingers on the reflex model look like hot dogs, but the system looks interesting and I gues for some the cost of the software easily equals getting the modeling done from scratch.

03 March 2003, 03:22 PM
I think they should try and model known actors or models and show them off to see how easy it is to match someone's anatomy.

The price!!!...ahahahahahahaha!!! I mean you can't even have a woman model.:surprised

it's promising but...I'd rather start with Character Man in XSI, play with the parametrics and then tweak it's geometry by pulling points.

03 March 2003, 04:30 PM
jesus christ. they must be joking...

03 March 2003, 04:47 PM
The big advantage I can see here is in the fat muscle and bone section... I haven't seen this in any of the other applications mentioned... I know that some of the larger studios have inhouse tools to do this (Shrek)... Essentially this would make animation much easier and realistic than the traditional bone-deformation approach.

03 March 2003, 05:12 PM
Well, CG Character is coming out with a new tool soon I think it's called CGSkin and it'll be customizable to fit any character/mesh you want. They're also developing a parametric body maker.

CG Character (

I'm's not very very often that you need accurate human and even if it is to replace a human character it usually is better to build it the way you need it. I mean it's mostly on a per case basis. No? Ok I'll shut up now..

03 March 2003, 05:13 PM
also, is the bone setup, wieghting and muscle deformation exported when moving from Drama to Maya or XSI?

03 March 2003, 09:15 PM
Visit the Reflex Drama Forum...

The president started answering questions about how Drama works compared to Absolute CHaracter Tools(ACT)

03 March 2003, 04:16 AM
Their forum's reading this thread too now. Hi guys! :)

I saw this first in -99, it's been in development even longer I think, so it's not surprising that they need to charge so much. But IMHO it's too much. Basically it's a good idea, something I've dreamt of many times myself, but for it to really work as planned they need to make the basic body much more realistic, and also be able to show off some realistic extreme poses (demonstrating that the flesh deforms properly).

I think they should also give much more control to the artist. I mean being able to make exact changes to large areas AND very small ones, in a transparent manner. Right now it seems they're going for more of a 'meta-control' Poser or Bryce kind of 'user-friendly' approach, which is fine but we need to also be able to go tweaker-mad if we want. :)

Lower the price, there'll be a cracked version available before long and such a high price only encourages that.
Anyway, the competition, Poser and ACT, will grow in capabilities, but their prices certainly won't go up that much. (In fact they may stay level, or even go down.) 'Freeware' will start popping up over the next few years, like what's happening lately with automatic rigging scripts.

03 March 2003, 12:34 AM
to Stahlberg,

I'm curious -
Do programs like this scare you? Regardless of the limitations of this particular program at this point, within five years, the market will be no doubt filled with a lot of programs that will produce detailed human 3D models with ease. It seems that this could greatly reduce the value of an artist that focuses on modeling things like beautiful women...

I'm sure a program will never be able to replicate your great style, just curious on your opinion, it's something that I have been thinking about since playing with the "Facegen" modeler....:)

03 March 2003, 02:12 AM
At the end of the day parametric figures and /or pre-muscled deformation systems are only going to be like any other extended primitive and / or rig, and only of use to some. For instance a lot of figure modellers re use their meshes to create new figures as the topology is not often that different and you have total control over your mesh. Similarly with mo cap and re-usable animation.. but people soon tire of repetition otherwise clip art would have killed graphics. You can't programme Tex Avery or Chuck Jones or Pixar etc etc and what you are communicating (in theory at least ) is always gonna be more important. In some of the better Poser work you can't actually tell it's been produced in Poser and tends to mainly offend those that view the *cough* 'worth' of a piece as evidence of a skill set that could be described as technical rather than neccessarily effective. That kind of 'criticism' keeps cropping up on here ad nauseum..i.e you used photographs.. you cheat.. oh you used a photo only as a non scanned reference.. oh you're really quite skilled.. DOH! or what. 3D is still a baby and hasn't neccessarily been cognizant of arguments that waned just after the turn of the twentieth century. It is beset by snobbism and ridiculous contradictions often. Again.. it's fine to use photographic textures for woods, ceramics etc .. but not neccessarily on the face.. er... oh really? Hopefully the emphasis will fall on the more creative and communicative, after all people are quite capable of producing cliches without any programme assistance. :D

03 March 2003, 08:17 AM
Well if a cheap 'human in a can' came out tomorrow and any amateur could create any character they wanted by adjusting a few very visual and intuitive parameters - like the Star Trek guys can do on the Holodeck - then I'd feel a bit depressed for a while... scared isn't the right word, there are many other things I could do... And I'd get me a copy of that app ASAP too. :)

But I think we are many years away from that, anyway.

03 March 2003, 10:41 AM
Sooner or later highly detailed parametric body models and the like will be the standard. It will be harder and harder to tell when they've been used.... but I think there will always, ALWAYS be a fairly clear distinction between that kind of assembly-line modeling, and the work of original artists who model everything themselves-- their own style will mark them and set them apart.

And anyway, if this weird freeky MASSIVELY overpriced program is any indication, it is going to be a WHILE. :shrug:

03 March 2003, 03:22 PM
LOL Thinks.. now should I tell them that when it was originally due out it was priced at $25,000 :D

03 March 2003, 06:59 PM
xynaria - "after all people are quite capable of producing cliches without any programme assistance" - LOL

Stahlberg - It's great that you think that way, I'm not surprised. I think that any great artist, especially in this field, must be flexible. But, because of the fast pace of 3D and our tool - the computer - in general, we must allways be looking toward the future. Things can change completely within a few years....
You mentioned that the high price would encourage a cracked version. I'm not so sure that is true. I have seen FREE games that are packed into cereal boxes that I worked on quickly become warezed :shrug:

Gnarly - Yep, I agree that you will always be able to spot fully computer generated humans, it's just virtual clip-art. It seems the benifit of this type of program will be in the huge time savings, and a great start...

The thing that I always come back to is: How often do you need a naked, bald human in day to day work? Unless you work in the virtual porn industry, most humans are about 70% covered up, you usually just see the face and arms only. The head is covered in hair (in most cases). A program that created virtual clothing would be much more valuable, it would seem.

03 March 2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by meats
A program that created virtual clothing would be much more valuable, it would seem.

Twould indeed!!!!! You could have great fun creating the presets
'Mr Byrites revenge' 'Haute Coiture for the terminally tasteless' 'Failed movie star' 'Dresses for the girl with the totally infeasible breasts' 'Hats for heads with obligitary horns' 'Aspirant pop star gets it wrong'.. in fact you could do tie ins with all the major manufacturers which could prove to be a fairly lucrative sideline.. hey just like the movies.. mmmn I smell $$$$$$$$$$ :drool: :drool:
oh dear I think I've imploded.. oh well :beer:

04 April 2003, 03:17 PM
hmmm???!!! They need to hide something or what? their forum has been taken off the support section of the website! And some questions posted by people disapeared from the board as well!

It looks like the announcment of the release of Drama was not as successfull as they tought and now they're back to the drawing board?

04 April 2003, 01:24 AM
Well if a cheap 'human in a can' came out tomorrow and any amateur could create any character they wanted by adjusting a few very visual and intuitive parameters - like the Star Trek guys can do on the Holodeck - then I'd feel a bit depressed for a while... scared isn't the right word, there are many other things I could do... And I'd get me a copy of that app ASAP too.

The Blender developers are working on a "Makehuman" project tool that is already promising. I hope it always remains in beta because a tool like this will always need to be improved. And yeah, I'm on board for automation of the 3d character modeling and animation process as long as I can tweak the stuff in manual mode.

04 April 2003, 07:40 AM
When the technology to create, well actually whatever, becomes everymans property only the imagination and creativity of the artist sets him apart from the mere amateur.

This i think is good, i mean Leonardo and Raphael has already taken the whole anatomy thing to its limits. This was some time ago. ;) Also: i think many tradtional illustrators (airbrush anyone?) got very scared when computers became affordable.

But there will always be a place for creative people who will push whatever enevelope is on the table.
So i dont think we have to worry. :beer:

rich novak
04 April 2003, 07:44 AM
is it just me or does the "drama" character look like an umpa-lumpa from charlie and the chocolate factory? :D

the way i figure it is like this. some people model characters from scratch, some people use them out of a box. either way they still need tweaking to make the characters look realistically different.

the people who model their figures from scratch are usually artists first who either work for a studio, or are trying their hand at a personal movie project based on amazing visuals.

the people who use tools like poser or daz|studio (soon to be a free beta... go to are usually storytellers with a softspot for art.

i'm stuck somewhere in between. i don't know if i'm an artist first or a writer first. but i know i'm a one-man shop with zero time and a fast-approaching deadline, so currently i'm leaning toward poser. if i do get it, it'll probably be handed down to my nephew eventually when i have more time, because i guarantee that i'll eventually be making my own characters, when my videocard will start displaying friggin backdrops :) and when i get more time.

if i'm looking at a still image of a poser vs. a lightwave vs. max vs. maya vs. etc, of course poser took less time and effort. now if i'm watching a movie, with any luck, the story will be good enough to make me forget i'm watching 3d. if a poser user also wrote the movie, did the animations, built the props, textured everything, did the sound, edited, then humped and humped until their movie was picked up... that's damned impressive.

if a lightwave person (etc) models a human that's so incredibly realistic that the character mesh starts getting love letters from fanboys living in their mom's basement, well, that's impressive too. and a little freaky.

this debate is going to rage for as long as there are 3d apps. both sides are going to make their points and make fun of eachother etc etc etc... but until we all start programming our own applications with renderers and modelers etc, then we're all using an app out of a box, to an extent.

however i decide to get my ideas on the screen, it's going to be a challange. no matter what program or combination of programs i use, i'm going to have a great time learning! cause i don't have any helpers, so i'm going it alone. i'm going to have a blast.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 05:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.