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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I've seen DAZ figures and some PA outfits used in several DC comics. For example I saw the figures used in Justice League Dark. I especially recognized Zatanna's outfit being a slightly modify PA product. So DAZ's products pop up in a lot of places.
I believe Daz Studio was used just for the Animatics. Animatics are like an animated storyboard directors use to get an better idea what a scene is going to require for shooting before actually doing the shot. In the old days they used to use Barbie dolls and G.I. Joes (the 12" ones, not the 80's 3.5" version) and basically have people act out the scene with them just like kid's playing with toys.
Now adays Daz Studio and Poser get used for a lot of animatics because it can achieve better lighting results than lighting toys and the figures themselves can actually animate.
There's a neat animatic for The Wrath Of Khan included on the DVD that shows them using the TOS action figures as stand in for the actors. It's like watching a movie some kids made with their toys, it's very cute.
Creative / philosophical point: did we see the work of Joe Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie in the actual Star Wars films? (aside from their relatively small effects and acting contributions)
Hmm...
I work with movie makers. Storyboarding is essential, but old2d isn't good enough for big action. DAZ figures are often rigged properly to stage out scenes and test lighting and multiple angles so the shots are right prior to shooting.
And you can find a loy of DAZ stuff on sc-fi channel movies.
You believe correctly! I can no longer count the number of scenes that were DAZ'd first just for lighting! I have seen DAZ/Stonemason sets used as pre-production setup for lighting and camera angle on film and tv. Agents of Sheild comes to mind.
I'm interested in how they use the DAZ information. For example, in setting up the lighting on a Stonemason set, do they note where they use spotlights (for example) so they can place them on a physical set? Or is it more like the physical set looks kind of like a Stonemason hallway (for example) and they use DAZ for character placement and how to light the scene generally so everyone looks good, or at least sets the scene tone?
This is pretty cool in any case :)
I actually worked for a studios that worked on CGI special effects and charakter animation for the Marvel Avenger franchise.( http://www.trixter.de/ )
I was no part of those productions and worked at a 2D TV series, but sat next to people working on the Marvel films.
DAZ studio, nor any of the DAZ characters, were used in any part of the pipeline, not in PreViz either. That's all Maya.
(I'm bound by an NDA not to go into further details, even if I would not know many.)
But maybe the main studio used it in a very early storyboard stage - storyboards are mostly still traditionally drawn, though...
Here's a link to Trixter's demo reel for Iron Man 3:
This former collegue of mine did some concept art for Civil War: http://alexanderlozano.tumblr.com/
I could have sworn some of the sets/backdrops that made it to broadcast looked like Stonemason's stuff...and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they did.
And do remember, while 3Delight may not be as big as some other renders, it is a pro-grade and often used in major films...but its share of the smaller market/TV studio crowd is failry large AND other than shaders (no, not presets) there isn't a difference. (It isn't impossible to port the production shaders into Studio, but it's probably easier to dump Studio assets into something that it is easier to use production shaders in...)
That is comparing a tool to the creative people who might use that tool. You credit the people who used Daz with the special effects design. But Daz itself is just a tool, we'd have to also credit Microsoft for all the Power Points they use otherwise. Just like the story boards in Star Wars, I very highly doubt any Daz renders show up in the final film. Daz is simply not THAT real yet (hello, HAIR!) But you do see the end result which is based off those story boards and concepts.
“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you h̶e̶a̶r̶. read”.
Still seems to be true.
Having been in the amateur film crowd from back in the days of Super 8 and 16mm, the big studios always keep a lot of the secrets of filmmaking close to the vest and finding out how certain things were achieved was like pulling hens teeth. While things are a WHOLE like better now and much more transparent, it's still sometimes difficult to find out how certain studios operate and what exactly they use -- unless it's something they know a mundane is very unlikely to be able to get their hands on. While it may or may not be true that Daz Studio played some part in a major Hollywood franchise, what does it ultimately matter if the software is doing what "you" need it to do?
I'm personally happy that the average Joe today is entirely capable of doing things in their basement that only a few decades ago would have cost a studio literally thousands of dollars to achieve. I've got stuff on my computer now (even if I haven't mastered it yet) that would have been considered science fiction when I was in high school -- let alone the computer itself). If Hollywood is using the same stuff I'm using that's cool, I'll take the hype at face value, but I'm not going to delve into it that deeply, it's not like I'm going to unistall all my Daz Studio stuff because of some misleading ad copy. Heck, if I get my production company off the ground I can guarantee you I'll probably use Daz in some capacity in my work, and I won't be shy in letting people know exactly how.
Oh yes, of course. Sorry if it seemed I was contesting your point. You just sparked a little aside for me, is all. We see the work of plasterers and painters directly on film, but there is a degree or more of separation from the work of concept artists and storyboarders whose work is more influencial.
Does not necssarily mean that Daz was used within the movie. They could have used Daz software just to create the promotional artwork.
Rather than all this contesting to somehow prove or disprove that Ron Mendel is for some reason blowing smoke about his use of Daz products you could actually look at what he says he does. http://www.daz3d.com/explore-ron-mendell ; " I used Michael and Victoria figures to simulate what this would look like, and with a few simple clicks they were posed and in my concept design." Note the words concept design. Now if you want to insinuate that isn't a valuable part of production you can, but I strongly suspect that the industry would disagree since concept artists are fairly well paid. Does it seem likely that an entire concept for unique projects would be from Daz or any other pre made source? No, as there would be some things that were unique to the story/artists vision. If Ron (just an example) were doing, oh I don't know, those round "cars" from Jurassic world do you think his time is better served building the cars and sticking a couple of genesis characters in them to show them in use or modeling up a whole character for the concept image?
"AZ studio, nor any of the DAZ characters, were used in any part of the pipeline"
I gather your thinking that consepts are not part of the pipeline then.
Simply stating that at Trixter, DAZ Studio was not installed on any of the production computers.
It's mostly Autodesk Maya and Nuke, with some ZBrush and MudBox..
I probably was the only person at the studio using DAZ Studio and Poser - privately, that is, at home.
They're great for doing still pictures using pre-fabricated content, not for re-creating live sets, matchmoving 3D items to live action characters, or animation in general. Which is what VFX production for Hollywood blockbusters is all about. And like I wrote, I know several concept artists, and they usually do digital paintings in Photoshop. Concept is usually about completely new designs, and neither DAZ Studio or Poser are modelers. The only thing I can see Studio or Poser do is very early story art using generic, non-production sets, to sell ideas to the management department and producers. Who usually need fancy pictures to be convinced. And maybe doing the PreViz (animatics) for some of the simpler scenes - but those are usually done in Maya.
Since you stated yourself that you were not part of the group related to Ron was working on, then you could not be 100% sure what was being used. If DAZ Studio or any DAZ priduct was used in the manner that Ron described, then it is simply part of the pipeline. It is what it is.
Digital painting in Photoshop can, quite often, start with Daz Studio as a base reference, etc. So it is still part of the pipeline. I know a lot of professional comic book artists that use it as a reference. Same of concept artists, same for illustration.
I am positive that GoM is right about the comic book artists. I'm going to be working with a guy and all of the base images will be rendered in Daz then sent to an inker. I got the gig because a friend of his that does comic books does his base layout for perspective and placement in studio.
A lot of posts in this thread suggested that people expected DAZ Studio to produce some of the visuals in the actual movies, which I deem highly unlikely.
The concept artists I know are all expert draughtsmen sketching from scratch - I could only whish my skills were anywhere near theirs. Yes, you can use Studio as a base for your concept art or illustrations, and it will be a part of the pipeline - you'd still need to be able to use a modeling program, photoshop, etc, and be very skilled at that, to produce the end result. I do not want to bash Studio, I like to use it, but I do think slogans like that to be a bit suggestive and misleading, especially when quoted out of context. See the earlier posts in this thread looking for direct Studio output in the movies as proof for that.
There are scores of consept artists and visual designers on all levels out there in the wide world. Many still do sketches on paper, some do digital painting and others do 3d design consepts. I know of at least one who does consept work for big movies and he does his with 3d because that is his medium.
Sempie basically your insinuating that Ron was not honest in his statements...
Now look at some of the videos that Blender Foundation has created https://www.youtube.com/user/BlenderFoundation. I think those videos make a better statement about the capability of the platform than a singular reference. Not to undermine the capability of Daz studio but it would be great if they collaborate with PAs to build such a showcase.
I had initially not even read Ron's article, just reacted on the slogan, as did most of the people in the earlier posts in this thread - most of them did not give me the impression the posters have read the actual article either, they were mostly reacting the slogan only.
I was battling the idea that hollywood style FX can be done with cost-free consumer software and relatively few skills - most movie producers seem to think this already at the first place, causing many VFX artists to be underpaid, overworked and underappreciated - the industry is suffering enough from the misconception that all these fancy FX are produced at the push of a button, instead of the blood, sweat, tears and overtime the artists need to invest. Advertisements like the DAZ one here aren't very helpful at that, and my reactions are mainly based on that notion. I know the industry and it is pretty tough.
Yes, I've now read Ron's article, and yes, he used it as a handy tool to speed up his work process - with the DAZ quote - out of context - suggesting a lot more.
No. I'm not criticizing Ron Mendel, I'm criticizing the DAZ advertising department.
Actually that is a big part of the problem; they can. A surf around Youtube will produce a TON of shorts, concept ideas, and tests by people, not necessarily using cost-free, but consumer software nonetheless, and producing hollywood style FX. To get to that level isn't going to take few skills, but quite a lot of work, still it doesn't mean you necessarily have to be a pro working for Disney anymore either. The statement that Daz3d may have been used in any capacity on a major motion picture is not so outlandish that you can dismiss it. This bugs the hell out of a lot of people, so now you see people putting down software like Blender, Lightwave, AfterEffects and the like simply because the masses have access to them and some are taking the time to really master these tools, but you see this in all areas of filmmaking. Now a 4K camera isn't enough, if you're not using a RED, you're in the minor (hobbyist) leagues. Some people simply want to keep this an elite pursuit. You can't say that some of the artwork being done by Daz artists is not being done at a pro level comparable to people working with vastly more expensive tools.
People justifiably get nervous when skills that once took years to learn and being mentored in starts being done by kids still in high school. It's simply the way technology works.
Somebody like Stonemason can produce production quality stills with DAZ Studio, but a lot of what I see on the web still makes me cringe big time. (My own DAZ and Poser output still often makes me cringe, I'm no wizard with shaders and lighting.)
There's also the issue with flexibility. I once had to animate a wooden puppet coming to live on a live action moving hand (in Maya), that was tracked to match the movement with the 3D character's base. I started out with a mime character performance, key framed. The producers changed their mind, and wanted the character to dance. I tried out two variations with ballet pirouettes. then changed to three variations on a russian cossack dance, all key framed. The producers then opted for a combination. In the end I blocked out seven variations on a single day, without any aid of motion capture, but with software with a decent graph editor - and I'm hardly a very experienced Maya animator; I'm basically a traditional 2D pencil on paper guy.
I'd like someone to pull that off with software like DAZ Studio, and its total lack of a decent graph editor..
The reality is coming to grips with the ten thousand subtle changes the producers want to see, varying from animation changes to remodeling stuff. It's usually version 137 that they take, after weeks worth of fine tuning
Scenes are usually rendered out in many separate passes, sometimes dozens of them, to be combined later in a compositing program like nuke, where you can then finetune things like specularity on the fly without re-rendering the entire scene. I've seen After FX used on TV productions, but I doubt if you can change actor's facial features in motion with that the way I have seen compositors do for Cloud Atlas.
You claim DAZ studio can produce Hollywood quality - I'd like to see some links to animation scenes not done with stock motion capture files like the AniMate stuff, preferably key framed scenes, and some real lip syncing, instead of the wooden Mimic output. The only thing halfway decent I've seen thus far is the later part of Star Trek Aurora, and even that is still a far cry from professional production quality.
That's not what I said. My actual words were:
" The statement that Daz3d may have been used in any capacity on a major motion picture is not so outlandish that you can dismiss it."
Any capacity also means, concept art as well as storyboards, which is what I can easily see Daz3d being used for. When I said you can find examples of people outside the industry doing Hollywood level Fx work I was specifically referring to self-taught people using 3d software such as 3ds Max, Lightwave and yes, Blender. I'm not a wizard with any of this software either, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize people who are, and I do stand by my claim that some of the work I've come across by "amateurs" is industry quality. The proof being that a lot of those people do and have gone on to work in the industry.
That's pretty much all I use Daz Studio for, references for 2D illustration. I even created a tutorial to help other illustrators use it for that purpose.
http://ghastly-h-crackers.tumblr.com/post/117847714827/how-to-use-daz-studio-to-create-references-for
if you have to ask it does not mean they have to explain. I'm still waiting on where these comparisions came from but they blew up the old forums so that took care of that.
I'm confused StratDragon. Are you saying you can't morph or rig or animate or something in one of those other programs? Because I know you can do all of those things in studio. Most of them (I don't rig at this point) I have done myself.
no I'm saying a Lamborghini Huracán and a Ford Fiesta (as Daz loved to cite) are both sports cars, Kobe Beef and Koala Jerky are both meats, a handmade Stradivarius and a box with crank that exposes a springing clown under the lid who socks you in the nose with a boxing glove are both musical instruments; however to compare these as in the same class could be interpreted as being highly selective of information without present a case for it. Are LWO,MAX or MAYA competitors to DS? It would make more sense for Studio to present itself as a challenger to Poser, which isn't free but all the content that is bundled with it I would think is a fair assessment. Otherwise where is Poser on this list? for that matter where is Blender on this list?
If someone asks you to back up your claims which are a bit disingenuous or sketchy to begin with you can't expect "don't question it, just accept it" to satisfy the inquiry.
We have a saying in 'Merica: Don't write checks your hinney can't cover!
however I am in the market for a Koala Jerky covered Ford Stradivarius with boxing clown inside if anyone knows someone.
So it isn't that it is not true, it is that you simply do not like the comparisons? Though I doubt if they felt they were not being candid about the comparison since it is truthful and honest as to what studio does. In what way can Studio not back up its claims to be able to do any of the ticked boxes? I suppose it depends on who you are assuming they were marketing to. If in fact they were marketing to a professional looking to move from from Maya then perhaps your right. I would also expect such a qualified individual to have other things that they were looking for, though it is clear that studio does not model or texture so it would need to be something other than that. But I doubt many people will accept that as the primary market that Daz has attempted to appeal to since they came out with Studio. I think it is an accepted fact that studio is aimed more at the intro to mid level market in most cases. Skilled users obviously can and do use it professionally just as is true for other intro to mid level programs like poser. If Poser were on the list it would be just below Studio with the same boxes checked and a price of $499.99 per the SM site. Actually, I suppose to avoid disingenuous behavior it would be below Carrara which would have more boxes ticked than either and a price of 285.00. So it would be Studio free, Carrara with more capabilities at 285.00 and then poser with the same boxes ticked as studio at 499.99 and then lightwave.