Not to sound unfriendly, but you seem to missing my point. The images aren't bad as such. They're just not very good for the kind of money you're asking. The same goes for the AccuRender images, btw.

There's renderers out there that are much cheaper (Podium) than yours and produce better quality. Some are even free (Kerkythea, Indigo).

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying a good deal of money. Good ideas and hard work should be rewarded. But I do feel that a 449 $ renderer should produce far better stuff than yours does.

I'm pretty sure quite a few people will agree with me.

Nevertheless, I of course wish you the best of luck with your product.

As far as I know, the Pro version does indeed time out after 8 hrs. But after that period, it magically transforms itself into the free version.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

@al hart said:

IRender and IRender Plus produce very good images.

Take a look at our image gallery for some of the images our customers have created:

404 Not Found

(forums.renderplus.com)

Mr. Hart, I was of course referring to those. I'm sorry, but for the price you're asking, those kind of images just aren't good enough.

But again, that mats editor is cool.

The material editor is a very nice touch. The images on your site, however, I find rather unconvincing. Sorry if this sounds a bit unfriendly, but, er, the Plus version costs 449 $ - for that kind of money, it should be able to produce far better images.

Is Google actually generating a lot of income with Pro version? I doubt that...

Good point. But they might be looking ahead. What if they indeed did make improvements 'to the core itself'? Thus providing us with, say, better handling of large, high poly files? Then SU would be a cash cow. (If I were them, I'd choose this strategy.)

And be honest...what did actually change to the 'modeler' part of SU pro since Google took over. Nothing right?

Can't say, really, I'm a fairly new user. But I'll take your word for it.

SU needs improvement to the core itself imho.

I agree. Less topping, more cake. SU is too limited in a number of aspects.

"Why not going Open Source with sketchup Pro?"

It's already possible to develop Ruby plugins for SU, right?

I'm not too sure if I'd just share the code if I'd own SU. Money makes the world go 'round ...

I second that. Podium really has come a very long way since I bought it (which, I think, was in May).

I've tried: Maxwell, Vray ... you name the app. None of these come close to Podium's ease of use. Indigo is the exception. Why? Because its SU plugin, SkIndigo, has an UI which is inspired by Podium's.

There's some really excellent ideas behind Podium - one of which is to make rendering as easy as humanly possible. Other apps claim to be easy to use, but only Podium really is [i]easy. Every new feature (bumps etc)has been implemented in such a way that even a technically person like myself can use it without much trouble.

As I'm writing this, the new version of Podium, commonly known as V2, is in the works. Nothing is known about it, as TBD and Sepo shroud themselves in secrecy (it is said they even have a secret handshake). Which, of course, is their business. But! Considering what they've pulled off until now, I'd say V2 might very well be a considerable step forward.

So ... consider using Podium. Good ideas should be rewarded.

(I sound like an ad today. Sorry for that. I'm a copywriter, I cannot help it. But I'm serious: good ideas, good app, bright future. No, I don't work for the Podium guys. )

lol! Not smart enough to figure out how V-Ray works, however.

Oh yes, before I forget. I’ve read through the posts on imported geometry. First of all: relax, everybody.

And second: SU is much more than a tool to create ‘native’ SU geometry. For many of us, it’s also a tool for modifying stuff that was made with other modeling apps.

Take me. I like to use a high poly model every now and then. I couldn’t possibly alter (scale, texture ...) such a model in any other app than SU.

My point? The very fact that people use SU to modify geometry created in other apps is a good argument for SU’s usability and versatility.

“If a male artist created identical artwork we have to analyse it differently (or do we? Discuss! ) as there is an entirely different implication in the context of the male gender traditionally having dominated and objectified the female gender.”

Again, I see your point. But this time I disagree. I think it’s quite possible for a male artist to, for instance, work on a female nude without other than artistic thoughts coming into play. After a while, that is. I did my first nude when I was fourteen. First thing I thought was: yay, titties!. That lasted for about ten minutes. After that, it was just work. We had both male and female models, by the way. Made no difference to me. (Well, there was one little difference: men were easier to do.)

Concerning intellectual justification: as far as art is concerned, there’s no need for that, I believe. Besides it’s own means, art doesn’t need anything. Paint, marble: they don’t need meaning or justification. In other words: art can do without crutches.

But is Biebel’s render art? No, and he knows that. He’s a smart guy. Did I nevertheless enjoy looking at it? Yes, I did. For a minute there, I thought it was a photo. I took great pleasure in it’s technical er ... whatever the word is. You get my point.

Are his images porn? No. This I know for a fact: as I looked at them, no blood was being transported rapidly to my nether regions. Sometimes reason falls short, and you have to rely on other means of understanding the world. Did you feel blood rushing, Jackson? I’m guessing: no. So: not porn. And therefore just another ‘normal’ nude.

"Please note my criticism was directed at only two of the images: the ones that are centred predominately on the genital area of the figure. If you were to analyse these images from an artistic standpoint, the choice of "camera" angle is vital in interpreting them, so my criticism is valid IMO."

I have no problem with a render centering on the vulva. That certainly has to do with all the nude drawing I had to do in highschool and at the academy. To me, a drawing, painting or render of a vulva is no different from one of, say, a shoulder. This may sound strange to some, but I'm serious.

"Maybe I'm being more critical than others as I used to frequent the Renderosity forums a lot for Vue tips and was frustrated by the overwhelming number of renders there of nude and lingerie-clad female Poser figures (usually unrealistically skinny, with enormous breasts and practically teenage faces ). There is no doubt in my mind that the renders on Renderosity are soft porn and frankly made what was otherwise a very good CG forum feel somewhat tacky and creepy. I'm not saying that Christ's renders fall into that category, but judging by Renderosity it's a fine line when nude renders start being posted before they start flooding in and their content becomes more questionable."

I see your point. I even agree. It is a fine line. But, as you've probably guessed, I don't think Christ crossed it. I may be some sort of deviant, but when I looked at the images, I didn't go "oooh, ssssexyyy!". No, I was genuinely surprised by the quality of the render. What distuingishes Christ's image from porn, IMO, is a certain ... tenderness.

"Like "Stinkie" you seem to have misread my post and assumed I have some issue with "too much nude"- it's nothing to do with "too much nude"; if I must spell it out I felt there was too much focus on the perineum in the 1st image and on the vulva in that 4th to be tasteful."

I didn't misread. I know exactly what you meant. Again, the vulva is just another part of the body, ready to be srutinized by the artist. I don't mean this as a derogatory remark, but I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories. This one's tasteful, that one's not. Seems a bit primitive to me. (I know this sounds a bit rude. I apologise for that: if this were a Dutch forum, I'd probably be able to bring my point across in a much more subtle way.) Magical thinking, you know?

With all due respect, I firmly disagree. If Christ's renders would have been pornographic, then you'd have a valid point. But are they pornographic? In my opinion: no. They merely show a naked body. Nothing wrong with that: the nude has been an artistic genre for centuries.

Maybe it's because I studied art, but these images seem fairly 'common' to me. They're just your average tasteful, even bourgeois nudes. (Not meaning to insult you here, Christ.)