ULTIMATE - 16MP photo reference on DVD

[archerx]

Is there a way to get a sample of one of the images?

[anakinbrego]

Here's some full size images!
http://www.artist-reference.com/klara_medkova/klara.htm

[archerx]

Here's some full size images!
http://www.artist-reference.com/klara_medkova/klara.htm

Oh thanks, wow in sample 2 you see all her acne and blackheads and everything... that's some serious detail! :eek:

[mummey]

Hah! :scream:

To be honest. I'm surprised something like this didn't happen years ago. Those guys have always been a good resource.

[TheBladeRoden]

So what is with women who have all their fingernails at different lengths?
http://www.artist-reference.com/klara_medkova/sample.jpg

[ndat]

Um... Cliche much?

How about instead of models holding guns we get some pictures of old people and fat people and everything in between with an focus on uniqueness.

Bah! no one is listening, they are just staring at her breasts.

[novaprospekt]

Um... Cliche much?

How about instead of models holding guns we get some pictures of old people and fat people and everything in between with an focus on uniqueness.

Bah! no one is listening, they are just staring at her breasts.
umm, go take a look at the modeling forums and tell me how many models of fat/old people you see.

[DaddyMack]

umm, go take a look at the modeling forums and tell me how many models of fat/old people you see.

http://features.cgsociety.org/challenge/strange_behavior/view_entries.php?challenger=12560

It was hard to find reference for this project...

[killer-instinct93]

Sure its a good reference if you're into creating detail no one can see.

But I don't much like the idea of encouraging art with this subject matter, especially when the images look eerily similar to those from the Virginia Tech shooter.

Poor taste IMO.

[Buhby]

http://features.cgsociety.org/challenge/strange_behavior/view_entries.php?challenger=12560

It was hard to find reference for this project...


Sort of looks like the Lady of Willendorf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VenusWillendorf.jpg

[Stahlberg]

Um... Cliche much?
Selling is about making a profit right? Ok so one method is, give the customers what they want.

But I don't much like the idea of encouraging art with this subject matter
Poor taste IMO.
I don't think this is about 'taste' and 'art'. If it was, the collection would have to be given away for free, because no one would buy it. Or at least not enough people to make a profit.

[yann22]

No offense, but considering the fact that you can get 3 months access to 3d.sk or one of its sister sites for 54.95 with unlimited zip downloads, 3000+ x 2000+ resolution, close-ups of all body parts and no restrictions on nudity, I'm not quite sure what the point of this offering is :shrug:.

[biliousfrog]

It doesn't really seem to cover anything that isn't already available for free from 3d.sk or Google...& I've got to agree that it's a very cliche'd set. Video games, TV, Movies, comic books, women with guns are everywhere & you'd have to be a fairly stupid researcher not to find any suitable reference material.

woah, I just noticed that the Animation Mentor banner has a glitch....floating paper, lands on the ground, POP! where'd it go?

[levius]

Um... Cliche much?

How about instead of models holding guns we get some pictures of old people and fat people and everything in between with an focus on uniqueness.

Bah! no one is listening, they are just staring at her breasts.

there are tons of old and fat people at www.3d.sk (http://www.3d.sk/) :) However if you check the covers of average videogame or sci-fi novel it seems that models holding guns are most useful reference.

[Cartesius]

How about instead of models holding guns we get some pictures of old people and fat people and everything in between with an focus on uniqueness.


Have you seen 3d.sk (http://www.3d.sk)? Old people, fat people, ordinary people -- they are all there.

/Anders

[ThirdEye]

Oh thanks, wow in sample 2 you see all her acne and blackheads and everything... that's some serious detail! :eek:

Looks a bit out of focus to me.

[Lman]

Well it was made created in conjunction with 3D.SK so I guess everyone wins there..
if your looking for a easy way to get these type pictures I guess its good,
still prefer to take my own reference pictures.

[ZephyrChef]

So how many different people do u get?

[ZephyrChef]

oops...sorry....didnt read the first post hehe

[mushroomgod]

Looks a bit out of focus to me.

thats what I was thinking....the sample is a tad soft.....16 megapixels means nothing if it looks like a 10 megapixel blown up.

I was on a shoot last week, the photohgraphers where using a 16-17 megapixel Hasselblad camera, I have never seen such a high quiality photo im my life. I shouldnt really compaire these photos to the ones taken with the Hasselblad though....just eveything looks soft compaired to it :)

[Diabolos]

In my opinion now after thinking about it and talking it over with a friend, there seem to be a handful of superficial images (nearly duplicated poses) - maybe to reach a number like 300, but would it not have made more sense to have 2 models @ 150 pics each 1 female and 1 male?

I ordered it anyway, as I do not have any of these kind of reference images in my library and figured this would be a good start, but did it knowing I will only use if at most 1/3 of the images.

I thought about just getting the subscription to sdk, but I guess it's just my personal preference to have a dvd with the files on it to keep them off my hard drive.

Just a thought.

D,

[CAClark]

Seriously people, two things.

First, Digital SLR's take soft pictures (upscaling aside if it's not an EOS 1Ds et'al). You can USM/Smart Sharpen to taste in Photoshop. It.s NORMAL.

Second, you are being forced to buy this. Go shoot your own refs if you want, but not everyone can, or wants to.

Geez.

[Ohmanoggin]

Looks like a good reference source to me. It is well done and the model is quite nice.

While there might be some other nice reference material out there, I can't imagine any artist not needed all they can get their hands on.

Ohmnoggin

[Lman]

thats what I was thinking....the sample is a tad soft.....16 megapixels means nothing if it looks like a 10 megapixel blown up.

I was on a shoot last week, the photohgraphers where using a 16-17 megapixel Hasselblad camera, I have never seen such a high quiality photo im my life. I shouldnt really compaire these photos to the ones taken with the Hasselblad though....just eveything looks soft compaired to it :)

we Just got a new one OMG is all I can say.. !

[mushroomgod]

Seriously people, two things.

First, Digital SLR's take soft pictures (upscaling aside if it's not an EOS 1Ds et'al). You can USM/Smart Sharpen to taste in Photoshop. It.s NORMAL.

Second, you are being forced to buy this. Go shoot your own refs if you want, but not everyone can, or wants to.

Geez.

Given that its in a well lit studio, and are probably using a tripod, I would expect sharper images - oh my comment was only directed at the one image iv seen, I have no idea what the other 299 images are like.
1D or 5D, should make little to no difference to sharpness....its more down the the lens than camera body. Anyway...its irrelevant, as reference its serves its purpose, I was only agreeing with ThirdEye ;)

[subtlebluetones]

Here's some full size images!
http://www.artist-reference.com/klara_medkova/klara.htm

am i just dumb?? but i cant find the sample image/s. im interested to see how big 16mp really is.....

[Diabolos]

am i just dumb?? but i cant find the sample image/s. im interested to see how big 16mp really is.....

no you are not dumb :), the link has been changed since the last hour or so - it was linked to 2 images in all 3 formats, and all 300 images were able to be viewed in thumbnail size.

D,

[Lman]

am i just dumb?? but i cant find the sample image/s. im interested to see how big 16mp really is.....


this a image from a Hasselblad H1 + Kodak Professional DCS 645H Sample
(16.5 megapixels).

and not part of the subject collection.
just for the size wise.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/kodak645h/7C8B0398.jpg
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/kodak645h/7C8B0398.jpg)

[FabioMSilva]

if i get this, it will be probably to use it as reference, as she has a nicer body than most models on 3dsk so far. For textures i wouldnt advice from what ive seen so far , as it is too blurry. Phearhaps the closeups on face are better? the blurry ones we've seen so far are actions shots so...

-Fábio

[ThirdEye]

First, Digital SLR's take soft pictures (upscaling aside if it's not an EOS 1Ds et'al). You can USM/Smart Sharpen to taste in Photoshop. It.s NORMAL.

Uh?!? I've seen pics coming from all sorts of dslr's with all sorts of lenses (which are much more important than the body) and i've never seen any soft pictures, it's often the opposite. Considering these are 16mp images they're most likely coming from a Canon 1Ds MKII or a Hasselblad, if i spent 10k bucks on a camera and a lens getting soft pics i'd be quite pissed off. Plus that's not soft, it's simply slightly out of focus (could be that the lens is front focusing a bit there) and no smart sharpen filter can bring it back in focus.

This one was shot with a cheap Canon 400D (Rebel XTi in the USA) with a simple front flash setup (which should wash details away) and it looks sharp enough to me.

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS400D/Samples/Flash/IMG_0128.jpg

These are two 10mp pictures coming from a 1D, if these aren't sharp i don't know what is:

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/downloads/portrait.jpg
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/downloads/canoeslalom.jpg

[CIM]

We recommend a recent model graphics card with 512MB or more graphics memory

:applause:

[visionmaster2]

Thanks for this link ThirdEye : http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS400D/Samples/Flash/IMG_0128.jpg

cool site.

and for the dvd... no thanks. it's not my taste.
and i dont like such hard marketing product.

[Spin99]

@ Lman
*picks up jaw from the floor*
Thanks for sharing it's really amazing to see what modern Hasselblad does :P

As for the DVD I think 3d.sk is already great so to have that much reference on DVD
must be great too. I hope more get released so you can pick and choose the models you want/need as well.

[archerx]

For the softness issues They probably should have closed the aperture more and used a crazy high shutter speed.

With one of the samples there's a very small depth of field and that's usually a result of a really open aperture.

But the parts that were infocus did seem pretty sharp.

Just pointing out...

[Werner]

Ouch...she is hot. :twisted:

[SergioSantos]

I hope the DVD will be better organized than 3D.SK
...once you have the file downloaded is painfull to find the exact file that you are looking for... they could use a good naming convention not this "full_figure_6_0118.jpg"
What the hell "full_figure_6_0118" means???
it's a foot, a hand, a head... ???

I don't think I'll buy it.

[Buexe]

This DVD looks like 3d.sk with a systematic approach ; )
Some of those models on 3d.sk don`t even have a 3/4 angle shot, only front and side.
The sets seem randomly put together to me. And even though some people want those crazy out-of-the-ordinary characters, some don`t and then 3d.sk offers only a very limited range.

[Bif]

Usually, in this situation I would just keep my mouth shut and let people go about their business. But I am highly disappointed with this offer/money making scheme.

FineArt.sk, 3d.sk, Human and Female Anatomy.sk all have very unique and interesting characters to model from including sexy women and heroic men posed and holding weapons. I have been using the site for many years now and have downloaded thousands of pictures. Personally, I think that this offer is a very bad idea and frankly, just a quick way to make money. Fineart.sk has offered great reference at a reasonable price for years now, and I highly respect them and am thankful for their services to this industry. What will selling 300 images on a duel dvd set do for anyone, except raise the cost of this sort of material in general? It simply takes money from those who don't know where to go to get good reference. I understand that CGTalk and Ballistic Publishing are companies and they need to make money but this is taking it to far. I pay my yearly costs to maintain an account with cgtalk and appreciate their services, but (among other things) shouldn't part of this payment include, pointing users to the best and cheapest reference, so that the entire community can produce better art(at the best price). It shouldn't be about producing overpriced dvd's(as compared to the fineart rates now) just to sell them to the people that have allready paid there dues to this site. My suggestion to anyone who wants good reference is to go over to 3d.sk and join up for 3 months to download as much good reference as you can.

I mean no offense to CGTalk or Ballistic Publishing, but I would suggest that you respect the community of artists who have supported you for all these years and try to support them at every turn, not to take advantage of them. If I have misunderstood, please, let me know, but this offer "appears" as I have stated above.

[ThirdEye]

For the softness issues They probably should have closed the aperture more and used a crazy high shutter speed.

If you use a crazy high shutter speed (let's say at least 1/1000 sec) then you can't close the aperture more, otherwise you need at least daylight, nevermind artificial studio light sources (and 1/250 would be probably more than enough in this situation). Plus i don't see any motion blur, if you're referring to the linked sample, it's just slightly out of focus, i don't know why people can't accept that.

[Dr. Ira Kane]

Usually, in this situation I would just keep my mouth shut and let people go about their business. But I am highly disappointed with this offer/money making scheme.

FineArt.sk, 3d.sk, Human and Female Anatomy.sk all have very unique and interesting characters to model from including sexy women and heroic men posed and holding weapons. I have been using the site for many years now and have downloaded thousands of pictures. Personally, I think that this offer is a very bad idea and frankly, just a quick way to make money. Fineart.sk has offered great reference at a reasonable price for years now, and I highly respect them and am thankful for their services to this industry. What will selling 300 images on a duel dvd set do for anyone, except raise the cost of this sort of material in general? It simply takes money from those who don't know where to go to get good reference. I understand that CGTalk and Ballistic Publishing are companies and they need to make money but this is taking it to far. I pay my yearly costs to maintain an account with cgtalk and appreciate their services, but (among other things) shouldn't part of this payment include, pointing users to the best and cheapest reference, so that the entire community can produce better art(at the best price). It shouldn't be about producing overpriced dvd's(as compared to the fineart rates now) just to sell them to the people that have allready paid there dues to this site. My suggestion to anyone who wants good reference is to go over to 3d.sk and join up for 3 months to download as much good reference as you can.

I mean no offense to CGTalk or Ballistic Publishing, but I would suggest that you respect the community of artists who have supported you for all these years and try to support them at every turn, not to take advantage of them. If I have misunderstood, please, let me know, but this offer "appears" as I have stated above.

True :) unfortunatelly everyone now will try to push the line as far as it can be pushed to gain money, only hard 'NO' will stop it, otherwise you know... For the DVD, no thanks. Don't want to be harsh but you have to be really slow to not be able find good refs on the net, that are way better than this. Cheers.

[archerx]

If you use a crazy high shutter speed (let's say at least 1/1000 sec) then you can't close the aperture more, otherwise you need at least daylight, nevermind artificial studio light sources (and 1/250 would be probably more than enough in this situation). Plus i don't see any motion blur, if you're referring to the linked sample, it's just slightly out of focus, i don't know why people can't accept that.

With an external flash (I'm not talking about a cobra, but big flashes that go on their own tripods.) you can as fast as you want, but at the highest speeds you may get some sync issues and just get a band for the photo. I did quite a few tests and it was all good.

They could make a nice set up with a few soft boxes on the flash, that should give them enough light and they should be able to close the aperture as much as possible and have a nice fast shutter speed.

But yea 1/250 should be good enough for that kind of stuff, I doubt the models are moving too fast :p

[FabioMSilva]

i guess its so expensive cuz she's a top model and not a porn star like aneta(i dont mean to disrespect aneta at all), or bystanders like the others at 3d.sk.

its a shame she has clothes on. her body textures would not need much retouching hopefully.

[Dr. Ira Kane]

i guess its so expensive cuz she's a top model and not a porn star like aneta(i dont mean to disrespect aneta at all), or bystanders like the others at 3d.sk.

its a shame she has clothes on. her body textures would not need much retouching hopefully.

Yeah, that's the reason it's so expensive for sure... :rolleyes:

[MarkSnoswell]

The idea for the ULTIMATE DVD seris came from 3d.sk. They came to us seeking a way to sell higher quality images than they provide through their on-line service.

The images all have photographic information embedded (Photoshop>file>info)
http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/dvds/ultimate/ultimate01/images/essence_fileinfo.jpg


Here are samples of unprocessed parts of the following TIFF photograph. These can be sharpened up a lot however the point is to provide the highest quality raw images and not ones that have already been processed. As you can see the resolution is extraordinary. All of the 300 photographs are this qiality -- and they are all availble in RAW format as well so you can have complete control of tone mapping, sharpening and other image processing at optimal quality.
http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/dvds/ultimate/ultimate01/images/YO5Z9528.jpg








http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/dvds/ultimate/ultimate01/images/sample_01.jpg

http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/dvds/ultimate/ultimate01/images/sample_02.jpg

And from a face closeup photograph.
http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/dvds/ultimate/ultimate01/images/sample_03.jpg

[MarkSnoswell]

Here is a contact sheet with thumbnail of the photographs on the DVD set. All of these photographs are at 16 mega pixel resolution and provided in both losless TIFF and RAW formats.

http://www.ballisticpublishing.com/dvds/ultimate/ultimate01/images/ULTIMATE_01_contact_sheet.jpg

[visionmaster2]

cool answer Mr Snoswel

in fact its more informative and convincing than all the publicity page of this dvd.

[Buexe]

cool answer Mr Snoswel

in fact its more informative and convincing than all the publicity page of this dvd.

yes, indeed!

[Lman]

yes looks good,
I really like that ultra close up of the eye and the pattren of the eye iris.

good stuff indeed.
best of luck with it.

-Liam

[CAClark]

Check un unprocessed RAW file from any decent DSLR.... and prior to any sharpening, they are always soft. For good reason, because it allows the photographer to decide how much sharpening is needed or wanted.

Uh?!? I've seen pics coming from all sorts of dslr's with all sorts of lenses (which are much more important than the body) and i've never seen any soft pictures, it's often the opposite. Considering these are 16mp images they're most likely coming from a Canon 1Ds MKII or a Hasselblad, if i spent 10k bucks on a camera and a lens getting soft pics i'd be quite pissed off. Plus that's not soft, it's simply slightly out of focus (could be that the lens is front focusing a bit there) and no smart sharpen filter can bring it back in focus.

This one was shot with a cheap Canon 400D (Rebel XTi in the USA) with a simple front flash setup (which should wash details away) and it looks sharp enough to me.

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS400D/Samples/Flash/IMG_0128.jpg

These are two 10mp pictures coming from a 1D, if these aren't sharp i don't know what is:

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/downloads/portrait.jpg
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/downloads/canoeslalom.jpg

[steffenk]

nice, but i would like to have some dvd`s with more than one kind of charcter... less poses, more different humans

[levius]

Yeah, that's the reason it's so expensive for sure... :rolleyes:

The fact is its' more expensive than 3d.sk for several reasons:

1, it's DVD not a download so it has be made and kept in stock etc.
(this is just the case of personal preference but many poeple prefer DVDs to paysite membership)

2, She is a top model, the photoshoot costed several times more than the average photoshoot for 3d.sk

3, Files are top quality RAW format for profesionals, on the other hand 3D.sk provides all photos in JPGs which are OK but RAWs are RAWs :)

[Ohmanoggin]

"...True :) unfortunatelly everyone now will try to push the line as far as it can be pushed to gain money, only hard 'NO' will stop it, otherwise you know... "

I don't get some of you. The price is typical of most training DVD's. There is plenty of free training material on the web, so should we all say NO, so no one will try to make money off us for that...OH WAIT!!!...we make money off our 3D work and you can get lots of free 3D imagery off the web. Maybe we should all say NO, it should all be free for the better of our community. Heck, let's all use Blender so no one is paid for developing 3D software either (no offense to Blender intended).

While some of you nitpick about the quality of the photos, the content or the price, why not consider the fact that you are in competition with other 3D artists and your competition might benefit from it. If the DVD can help you to be a better artist then why not be gratefull someone took the effort to offer it instead of acting like they spit in your face.

Just my two cents,
Ohmanoggin

[subtlebluetones]

dont like it then dont buy it

[Spin99]

I think DrSnoswell definitely makes the point here.
And then again some really interesting comments on the versatility of shooting digital.
Also I think only the Hasselblad could do a maybe obvious better job?

Together with some strong lighting and fast shutter sure..
Photos look great anyway come on you bunch.

Really I'd sure love to have that much captured reference on female anatomy,
specially coming from the same person. How useful is that :D
As for Aneta I'm not going to comment (!)

I think I'll go scream nowwww

[Ariel]

there are tons of old and fat people at www.3d.sk (http://www.3d.sk/) :) However if you check the covers of average videogame or sci-fi novel it seems that models holding guns are most useful reference.

Hi there,

I'll start by saying that I love this idea and this seems like a great product. I would be interested in more photo collections like these in the future (especially because of the high-res nature and RAW format). I do agree a bit with ndat, however, about the subject matter of this DVD. From a character design standpoint I firmly believe that most pretty people (especially those with ideal or average proportions) make for some of the most uninteresting characters, and it would be cool to have a DVD similar to this one but with less 'average' faces and bodies.

Also, it's cool to have the DVD option, but it would make a lot of sense to have this available as online downloadable content, just to give people an alternative.

Finally, it would be awesome if you guys added a section in your photo shoots with strong contrast lighting for modeling reference. It looks like most of the photos are lit with very soft/even lighting, but it would be super useful to have some photos taken with strong directional ligthing that reveals form (kind of like this: http://www.fotopolis.pl/obrazki/cameron3t.jpg)

good luck and awesome job with this dvd!

PS: the download speeds on 3d.sk are what keep me from signing up right now. Are there any plans to speed things up a bit?

[japetus]

If you don't like it, don't buy it sheesh. Some of ya'll act like they're forcing you too. Not every product is meant especially for you! :rolleyes:

[ThirdEye]

If you don't like it, don't buy it sheesh. Some of ya'll act like they're forcing you too. Not every product is meant especially for you! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but this looks like the same attitude of people posting their work in the gallery but not accepting negative comments. I'm quite sure Ballistic admins themselves are happy to read comments about their products from potential customers, otherwise they wouldn't have posted this here (guess what, a public forum), they would have just added a banner to the website.

[Jed]

I like the DVD format, too. And those close ups of her face do look amazing.
I'm a bit more skeptical about the usefulness of 16K pose pics in there, though. Judging from the thumbnails it looks like they'll use more than a whole DVD. Good quality 2k pics would have been more than enough for these, and I would have rather seen some more close ups of the hands, feet, etc...

I hope this DVD does well, though, cause I know you have enough material to do the ultimate reference collection for modelers. But I agree a bit more variety in the models would probably be more useful for people out there.

On another note, I can't encourage people to subscribe to 3d.sk enough, this site has been a cornerstone of our modeling pipeline for years now. Anybody doing character modeling should have an account with these guys.

Good luck with this.

[Neil]

umm, go take a look at the modeling forums and tell me how many models of fat/old people you see.

well that could be because of what hes talking about. I can find a million pictures of jessica alba, but very few full body pics of an old lady or grandpa. Why struggle to find references, when you can go the easy way out.

But that is the reason why i'm also not interested. Shes cute, however, very normal looking. I can open up Maxim and find references like this. Why do I need images of her wearing a leather jacket and holding a knife? (seriously i don't know).

[Neil]

Seriously people, two things.

First, Digital SLR's take soft pictures (upscaling aside if it's not an EOS 1Ds et'al). You can USM/Smart Sharpen to taste in Photoshop. It.s NORMAL.

Second, you are being forced to buy this. Go shoot your own refs if you want, but not everyone can, or wants to.

Geez.

And two response.

1. Its easier for us to soften image than sharpen. You get aliasing with sharpening. Its just easier to get them sharp to begin with.

2. People aren't being forced, they're offering their opinions. As a company, they'd want to know what the customers (US!) think and why we would or wouldn't buy the product. Maybe next time around they could provide what was lacking the first time around.

[ThirdEye]

Why do I need images of her wearing a leather jacket and holding a knife? (seriously i don't know).

The jacket: because you can study how cloth bends and produces wrinkles if you need to model one.

The knife: dunno, because it looks cool i guess.

[levius]

well that could be because of what hes talking about. I can find a million pictures of jessica alba, but very few full body pics of an old lady or grandpa. Why struggle to find references, when you can go the easy way out.

But that is the reason why i'm also not interested. Shes cute, however, very normal looking. I can open up Maxim and find references like this. Why do I need images of her wearing a leather jacket and holding a knife? (seriously i don't know).


So, here is the link to old people on 3D.sk (174 pages) :)
:http://www.3d.sk/?id=10&search_query=&gender=&age=61-70&body=&body_type=&race=&special=&poses=&emotions=&clothes=&animals=&videos=&premade=&thumbnail=sm&sf=p&mi=1&mv=1&bs=1&bp=1

As for the royalty free references of Klara VS maxim images, you can use them directly in your work without infriging on somebody's copyright. It could be pretty dangerous to use "references from internet" or magazines for commercial work without knowledge of the author. I am pretty sure all of the artists here would be pretty upset to find out that their photo or art was used for commercial work without their knowledge, right? :)

And as for the leather Jacket and knife, these photos were intended for professional illustrators like Dave Seeley, if you check out his book covers (crazy stuff) it's pretty obvious. :) http://www.daveseeley.com/portfolio_folder/portfolio.html

[bigguns]

The jacket: It can be usefull but he have to much pics of this, maybe 10-15 pics have been be enought to covering the wrinkles in the cloth.

What I'd like to see on this DVD is more models and 2 kind of lighting. One soft like this one to take texture from it and one contrasted to see volume to help on the modeling part. That must be really more cool.

I like the fact that it's hi quality but I found it a little to mush blurred on some shoot. It's easier to blur than to sharpen.

Good luck with it.

[Leshiy3d]

nice bunch of pics, anyway
and czech girls...- rulezzz ! :thumbsup:

[Spin99]

Its easier for us to soften image than sharpenDisagreed.
You might want a soft look to a pic? What about PS's unsharp mask?
Not in agreement.

And if you don't know why you need a girl in leather holding a knife than you lack imagination.
Sorry not trying to be harsh just had to comment.
Why people whine so much?

[Womball]

It seems odd there is no nude images. And I would love to see video games with leading characters that are old and or obese.

[overcontrast]

m not sure how many of those images can be used for reference... i mean it looks like a happy photo shoot... gamers wud be more interested in this then the actual artists LOL. nope I wudnt spend my money on this.. i prefer google more :D

[fx81]

I'll start by saying that I love this idea and this seems like a great product. I would be interested in more photo collections like these in the future (especially because of the high-res nature and RAW format). I do agree a bit with ndat, however, about the subject matter of this DVD. From a character design standpoint I firmly believe that most pretty people (especially those with ideal or average proportions) make for some of the most uninteresting characters, and it would be cool to have a DVD similar to this one but with less 'average' faces and bodies.

Also, it's cool to have the DVD option, but it would make a lot of sense to have this available as online downloadable content, just to give people an alternative.


totally agree.

i would definitely like to see a collection based more on natural people with some natural clothes. most professional artists wont find this to be in their taste level and wont buy it.

but honestly i think this particular DVD is targeted towards the hobby artists and beginners, not the professionals. Hence the lack of nude shots.

[Ohmanoggin]

"...but honestly i think this particular DVD is targeted towards the hobby artists and beginners, not the professionals. Hence the lack of nude shots."

I respectfully must disagree. We all have different needs, interests and tastes. The human figure takes a long time to master, a hobbiest is not going to be better off with more nudity or more "interesting" subjects. They need a lot of poses of the same thing over and over until they aren't copying, but observing.

Actually, I would think that a professional would have more use for the photos than an amature. Professionals can look at a woman wearing a thick bath robe and figure out her form, so skimpy panties and bra aren't hiding anything. An amature that is just going to copy just wants a nude front, side and back and they are good to go.

While her clothing is not common, it does have a lot of specular highlights which make interpreting 2D images much easier than typical clothing.

Respectually,
Ohmanoggin

[Sir-Avalon]

Hi all,
First of all I'd like to say... It's not a contest about cameras and how soft/sharp the images are, or which camera they use. Good reference material is quite hard to come by and even if the picture isn't the one your looing for you can still get a lot of information from them... So I don't see why everyone is complaining about this compilation of photos? It's detailed, more than enough for any type of media...

and I totally agree with the previous post by Ohmanoggin (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=217278)

Cheers,
/Chris

[KahlanAmnell]

I mean just.... wow

I have just bought this and i must say, looking threw these images, It will most certainly boost both my 3d and 2d game.

[VonMarsch]

Damn! I just got 5 books from ballistic :( I want this too.. I need to order this later. Hopefully we can get more of these soon.

[Shonner]

i would definitely like to see a collection based more on natural people with some natural clothes. most professional artists wont find this to be in their taste level and wont buy it.

So professional artists need help with modeling average people, and professionals are sickened by cool beautiful people. Ok.


but honestly i think this particular DVD is targeted towards the hobby artists and beginners, not the professionals. Hence the lack of nude shots.

So hobby and beginner artists are not interested in modeling from nude shots. And nudes can only be modeled by professionals.

I ordered the DVD anyway in case I need it for something.

[Spin99]

but honestly i think this particular DVD is targeted towards the hobby artists and beginners, not the professionals. Hence the lack of nude shots.Yes they could make an all nude DVD with someone that has good musculature as well?
Of course there's life drawing as well..

Um my point that it would be nice if there was more DVD's like this coming out, this one already very interesting, look at the facial details shots for gums and expressions.
Just think it could build up on a nice reference library with more releases.

Cheers :P

PS Wow does she have a preety tongue. ***** to that :D

[lorely3000]

No offense, but considering the fact that you can get 3 months access to 3d.sk or one of its sister sites for 54.95 with unlimited zip downloads, 3000+ x 2000+ resolution, close-ups of all body parts and no restrictions on nudity, I'm not quite sure what the point of this offering is :shrug:.

This is really good for me...I've ordered mine yesterday evening...you know what? I tried subscribing to 3d.sk 2 years ago but can't due to some credit card restriction...now the only problem is hoping that the custom officers here in Malaysia won't mistaken it for porn...

[Asatira]

I think this is promising as a series. Admittedly, I'd like to have multiple models and a wider variety of clothes styles, including nude/semi-nude (ie, the bikini she wears here is fine by me). I'm a pretty casual artist, and can't get or afford live models, so references like this, and this quality, is great. I don't think I'll be getting this one right now, but I'm hopeful there will be more and they'll touch on more subjects.

[levius]

Guys check this out:

http://www.3d.sk/img/user_works/Machine3DSK.jpg

This is what these poses were intended for :)

[Spin99]

Wow (*****) here really nice.
levius doggy got bad teeth? ;)

[CAClark]

And two response.

1. Its easier for us to soften image than sharpen. You get aliasing with sharpening. Its just easier to get them sharp to begin with.

2. People aren't being forced, they're offering their opinions. As a company, they'd want to know what the customers (US!) think and why we would or wouldn't buy the product. Maybe next time around they could provide what was lacking the first time around.

Point 1 is just nonsense.

Point 2 is fair enough, opinions are good, but there is a lot of drivel here too.

Cheers!

[CAClark]

If you use a crazy high shutter speed (let's say at least 1/1000 sec) then you can't close the aperture more, otherwise you need at least daylight, nevermind artificial studio light sources (and 1/250 would be probably more than enough in this situation). Plus i don't see any motion blur, if you're referring to the linked sample, it's just slightly out of focus, i don't know why people can't accept that.

People don't accept that because it isn't correct. Seriously, go shoot with a DSLR, and then compare like for like the corresponding RAW file and JPG that the camera produces. What do you see? Hey presto! The RAW looks kinda soft compared to the JPG. That's because unless you tell your camera specifically otherwise, the JPG is sharpened in camera, along with saturation, contrast, hue blah blah. None of which is applied to the RAW. The RAW leaves the photographer to apply any degree of processing seen fit, including sharpening. And when you are done, you have a nice and crisp processed file.

As a side note, clsoing down the aperture as small as possible wouldn't help potentially, as once you hit f16 a an absolute critical limit (ideally limited to f11 or so), defraction will start to soften the image.

Cheers!

[Diabolos]

Well, it arrived (woot on the delivery time guys - your website says 1-3 weeks - that was fast) - I am overall happy with it, as it fulfilled what I needed. I am sticking with my original comments.............

Pros and Cons from a hobby modeller:

PROS:

Nice detail shots.
Poses are straight and well aligned.
Important angles for modelling.
DVD is well organized.
Like having everything on a DVD, then I only need to copy the images I need for the orthographic views or texture map into my project folder, then erase them when I am done.

CONS:

I do not like these kind of things accessing DOS command window (just a personal thing).
Excessive, nearly identical views/poses.
A male model could have been used for the second DVD for an ultimate collection.

As for the sharpness or blurriness, I do not have to the experience to make a comment on that.........do not know what to compare it to so to say.


Thats all - I am sure I will be using it very soon and am happy that I ordered it - to finally have this kind of reference material in my library - images on the net just do not seem to cut it - at least this is the SAME model in the SAME poses.

D,

[Neil]

Disagreed.
You might want a soft look to a pic? What about PS's unsharp mask?
Not in agreement.

And if you don't know why you need a girl in leather holding a knife than you lack imagination.
Sorry not trying to be harsh just had to comment.
Why people whine so much?

No, YOU lack imagination, if you need a picture of a girl holding a knife just to model someone holding a knife. That's my whole point. What if I wanted her holding an axe or a staff or a lead pipe. Do I need a picture of her holding each one of these items? No. Just a generic pose with no weapon would be sufficient.


All I keep hearing it how wrong I am that it's so easy to sharpen pictures. Yet nobody explains why they feel that. And I'm sorry "unsharpen mask" is not your fail safe, end all fix. It sharpens it by averaging pixels. I typed in unsharpen mask in google and here if the first page that came up:

"We can't really sharpen an image any more than it already is. If it wasn't sharp when captured, there's nowhere the information needed can come from later on. What we can do is create the illusion of sharpness by exaggerating contrast along edges in the image. This added contrast makes the edges stand out more, making them appear sharper.

While unsharp mask can work wonders for restoring the crispness we expect, it does have its limits. Don't try to use Unsharp Mask as a substitute for proper field technique."

I'm gonna spend no more time arguing this. Thanks.

[levius]

No, YOU lack imagination, if you need a picture of a girl holding a knife just to model someone holding a knife. That's my whole point. What if I wanted her holding an axe or a staff or a lead pipe. Do I need a picture of her holding each one of these items? No. Just a generic pose with no weapon would be sufficient.


All I keep hearing it how wrong I am that it's so easy to sharpen pictures. Yet nobody explains why they feel that. And I'm sorry "unsharpen mask" is not your fail safe, end all fix. It sharpens it by averaging pixels. I typed in unsharpen mask in google and here if the first page that came up:

"We can't really sharpen an image any more than it already is. If it wasn't sharp when captured, there's nowhere the information needed can come from later on. What we can do is create the illusion of sharpness by exaggerating contrast along edges in the image. This added contrast makes the edges stand out more, making them appear sharper.

While unsharp mask can work wonders for restoring the crispness we expect, it does have its limits. Don't try to use Unsharp Mask as a substitute for proper field technique."

I'm gonna spend no more time arguing this. Thanks.

I got to say I really apreciate all the comments here, as lot of the critique could be used for improving our work. And at least its good oportunity to clear up some subjects .

My 2cents:
1, It's really a diferent pose for each weapon, while you can use the knive pose for long knife and even short sword you couldn't really use most of them for axe, gun or spear. At least the wrist and fingers are diferent and this area is one of the hardest things to draw. While you can definitely hold diferent weapons in your hand and make a photos and then combine it with original photo it seems to me that it's much better to have the original model in the same pose holding the weapon you need, at least because of diferent shape and size of the fingers which changes the whole hand pose and holding.

2, Sharpen and unsharp fileters could do a huge diference even in JPG files but RAW photos contains much more information. That's why we provide them, you can get diferent contrast and exposure from these files, something you could never do with any other format. I will post an example soon :)

Of course if the photo is blurred because of bad light, you simply miss the info to make it sharper but on a good quality soft photos it's really a big improvement. The info from google may be corect but the reality is the picture looks better and is sharper at the end, and this is the result we are after. My friend that creates efects for moovies tought me a good trick, when you are going to decrease resolution of a picture, especialy for icons or buttons sharpen it first and then resize, the result is much better an easier to read. :)

[mustan9]

Did you have to photograph the faces of the girls with them wearing face make up.

Any male subjects?

[Ohmanoggin]

Q" ..Did you have to photograph the faces of the girls with them wearing face make up?"

A: They did. Judging from the images shown , there is a variety of face shots with and without makeup. See the "Emotions" section.

Ohmanoggin

[mustan9]

A: They did. Judging from the images shown , there is a variety of face shots with and without makeup. See the "Emotions" section.

oh yea. That's cool.

I think this is a great DVD for $65. I hope to buy it later.

I really like the close ups of the mouth, and eyes. I always need those organic skin references.

If you guys decide to do another DVD. I know the female models photograph nicely, but I would much rather have a range of body types. Especially large over weight people, skinny unhealthy looking, and from different countries.

Oh, and if you could do a DVD like this with a professional body builder. That would be a must have reference DVD!

Now that would be an amazing DVD collection!

[levius]

There photos with and without makeup. The ones without are good for 3D texturing others are better for illustration. All poses are with makeup.

[buddythedesigner]

My friend that creates efects for moovies tought me a good trick, when you are going to decrease resolution of a picture, especialy for icons or buttons sharpen it first and then resize, the result is much better an easier to read. :)

Yeah, this what I was doing ever since :D In most cases I work on 2x bigger res, unsharp mask and then resize, it's a good way to avoid sampling that smooths image.

[CAClark]

Don't try to use Unsharp Mask as a substitute for proper field technique.

It's inherent of an unprocessed 16mp RAW file, field technique has nothing to do with it in that context.

[Buexe]

I received my DVD together with a copy of the FACE book. Generally I`m very satisfied especially the book is worth every penny. Here is what I think about the DVD:

Pros:
- the model
- the picture quality ( including lighting )
- the price
- head shots from above and below, very rare but very important IMHO (I look at my 3D models all the time from above)
- systematic approach to capture the head and neck
- body references are very good for

Cons
- the poses (too many of the same theme, lacking casual poses, like holding a phone)
- no detail (orthogonal) shots of hand/feet
- too few facial expressions and not from 3/4 angle ( btw is this soft light good for shots where you want to capture subtle deformations of the human face?)
- this action theme is too specific

As you can see my pros outweight my cons ad I would definetely buy it again, especially since reference material of this quality is hard to come by(at least for me). I just listed these cons here, so that maybe these points could be improved on future DVDs. My expectations were more than satisfied with this purchase and Im hoping that a male version will soon be available. If my above mentioned amendments would be at least partly become "reality" I would be willing to spend more for DVDs like this.

my 2 cents : )

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.