THE GAZE

slater · February 13, 2015, 12:44:37 PM

the gaze....selfie

slater · February 15, 2015, 01:05:07 PM

No gaze?..hmmm

Magnus Skogsfjord · February 15, 2015, 01:08:51 PM

Holy cow.. I'm curious about these. Did you model this? Or is it a scan? Either way, it's mighty impressive! I just wish I knew the amount of work behind these kind of shots. It is such a different world compared to the engineering software.

slater · February 16, 2015, 12:33:31 PM

Quote from: Magnus Skogsfjord on February 15, 2015, 01:08:51 PM
Holy cow.. I'm curious about these. Did you model this? Or is it a scan? Either way, it's mighty impressive! I just wish I knew the amount of work behind these kind of shots. It is such a different world compared to the engineering software.

Nope i didn't model this..is a scan from 3dscan.
I just made the render, and i modified textures and keyshot material , with my taste.
But it's seem not be interesting...but i'm workingon Others ways..
Cheers

slater · February 17, 2015, 12:58:25 PM

Another

evilmaul · February 18, 2015, 11:30:14 AM

Slater, ppl are emotional being and I guess the problem with this is that the renders dont convey much. You basically just took a scan and its textures and rendered it out. Now that is ok with inanimated objects like cars, jewels etc, but not if you re trying to work out a digital human being. It doesnt matter that you gave it a tile...because it's the most obvious thing you could have given it since the scan was done in this neutralish , not so interesting pose. Then on the technical side, it doesnt even have eyes ....perhaps add at least the cornea? and the skin is overly saturated and have little or no specular component to it.
My 2 cents to your comment about ppl not finding it interesting...to me that is why...

slater · February 18, 2015, 12:55:16 PM

Quote from: evilmaul on February 18, 2015, 11:30:14 AM
Slater, ppl are emotional being and I guess the problem with this is that the renders dont convey much. You basically just took a scan and its textures and rendered it out. Now that is ok with inanimated objects like cars, jewels etc, but not if you re trying to work out a digital human being. It doesnt matter that you gave it a tile...because it's the most obvious thing you could have given it since the scan was done in this neutralish , not so interesting pose. Then on the technical side, it doesnt even have eyes ....perhaps add at least the cornea? and the skin is overly saturated and have little or no specular component to it.
My 2 cents to your comment about ppl not finding it interesting...to me that is why...

Well Evilmau, basically this is the comment and the answer i was waiting for!! Thats because i was waiting for comments that didn't came!I was not waiting for comments "nice" or "bad shot" or Others..but a comment that Learning me whi the shot was not working, and what was wrong on it, and now is a little bit clear to me.
This is a keeper, a technical suggestion from you..i know your work on here.
So could be possible to see how u manage this kind of scan,and what u do on it to get the render near to realism?(the scan is free from 3dscanstore).I think this should be helpfull for me and for all the users;
regards

evilmaul · February 18, 2015, 04:00:02 PM

I dont use scans so I am not sure about that data (obj and textures). I think the best exercise is done by training the eye to see...to observe.
This is not a familiar head and therefore you have no reference to compare it to. Start from zero, choose a subject (a friend that you can take photos of, or pic someone famous from the net of which you can find plenty of references) and work your way up to it. And at every step notice what good and what needs to be addressed as you progress. We try to imitate reality, so in a way, given that the tools are there, you 'just' need to see what you need to do in order to achive the goal.

edwardo · February 19, 2015, 04:20:29 AM

Dude, you need to not worry so much when people don't post! There can be 101 reasons for it ranging from intimidation because work is good, not being in the same field or type of modelling so not really being able to comment, and just plain old being too busy to post! I have posted many things in the past and got like ZERO comments on stuff I liked, and pages of comments on things that were shit, or just experiments - go figure!!??

The realism in these shots is pretty good, but the shots themselves don't do much for me - they are emotionless and a bit like a police mugshot. Look at some portraits by the old masters and try and mimic their lighting

slater · February 20, 2015, 01:16:07 PM

Quote from: evilmaul on February 18, 2015, 04:00:02 PM
I dont use scans so I am not sure about that data (obj and textures). I think the best exercise is done by training the eye to see...to observe.
This is not a familiar head and therefore you have no reference to compare it to. Start from zero, choose a subject (a friend that you can take photos of, or pic someone famous from the net of which you can find plenty of references) and work your way up to it. And at every step notice what good and what needs to be addressed as you progress. We try to imitate reality, so in a way, given that the tools are there, you 'just' need to see what you need to do in order to achive the goal.

Thanks for suggestions Evilmaul , i will try to get something better on next shots, but is not really easy to get reality without a precise input. I found that really difficult with organic scenes.
Thx