Correct Body Proportions - difficult

[aleica]

http://hypatia-lovers.com/geometry/Divine_Proportion.html#22





It has been determined that in the most Beautiful, Harmoniously-Proportioned Human Bodies the following mathematical relations hold true:



1. The ratio of [the breadth of the lips] to [the breadth of the nose (at its widest point)] is equal to φ .

2. The ratio of [the breadth of the lips] to [the distance between the edge of mouth and the edge of face (nearest jaw line)] is equal to φ .

3. The ratio of [the distance between the top of the head and the bottom of the chin] to [the distance between the bottom of the chin and the navel] is equal to φ .

4. The ratio of [the distance between the top of the head and the navel] to [the distance between the navel and the bottoms of the feet] is equal to φ .

5. The ratio of [the distance between the suprasternal notch (i.e., bottom of the neck) and the knees] to [the distance between the knees and the bottom of the feet (perhaps while raised up on the toes)] is equal to φ .

6. The ratio of [the distance between the suprasternal notch (i.e., bottom of the neck) and the navel] to [the distance between the navel and the perineum (or vulva)] is equal to φ .

7. The ratio of [the distance between the perineum (or vulva) and the knees] to [the distance between the navel and the perineum (or vulva)] is equal to φ .

8. The ratio of [the breadth of the lips] to [the breadth of each eye] is equal to φ .

9. The ratio of [the breadth of the central incisors (front teeth)] to [the breadth of the lateral incisors (smaller teeth which flank the front teeth] is equal to φ .

10. The ratio of [the length of the middle phalanx of any finger] to [the length of the distal phalanx of that same finger] is equal to φ .

11. The ratio of [the length of the proximal phalanx of any finger] to [the length of the middle phalanx of that same finger] is equal to φ .

12. The ratio of [the distance between the level of the eyes and the top of the upper lip] to [the distance between the top of the upper lip and the bottom of the chin] is equal to φ .

13. The ratio of [the width of the shoulders] to [the width of the narrowest part of the waist] is equal to φ .

14. The ratio of [the length of the forearm, from wrist to elbow tip] to [the length of the extended hand, from the wrist to the tip of the longest (i.e., middle) finger] also approximates φ .

[Rod Seffen]

Completely pointless, unless you want to produce boring and vacuous barbie dolls with no individuality or character.

[aleica]

How do you know a barbie dolls is boring and vacuous? maybe only the one you produced.

This is the proportion, not the facial expression.

please make a detail point when you make a post.



Completely pointless, unless you want to produce boring and vacuous barbie dolls with no individuality or character.

[Pinoy McGee]

I prefer the full figured proportion myself. Lot's of luvvin here.


http://homepage.mac.com/dtrull/chicks/nikkifa.jpg

[ienrdna]

Completely pointless, unless you want to produce boring and vacuous barbie dolls with no individuality or character.

Haven't seen you complaining about nude male figures:love:

[Rod Seffen]

That's because the sort of little perverts who hang around CG forums don't tend make pouting male figures in g-stings, with soft lighting and an alluring gaze to camera, the way they do with nude females.
Basically, when the sort of unsophisticated, uneducated males who make up 90% of the population of CG forums create character models, they tend to revert to childhood, so they make girls look like Barbie dolls, and they make guys look like Action Man, complete with muscles and guns.
If you had even the slightest modicum of intelligence or insight, you'd realise that it's not the nudity or lack of it, but the context and intent that is the issue.
Nudity itself is completely benign, it's how people choose to portray it that makes the difference between vulgarity and aesthetic merit - but of course, it only creates that difference when seen by cultured, educated people, the unwashed masses don't see anything remotely tacky or vulgar about a topless version of Lara Croft pouting at the camera.

[ienrdna]

Look, I agree, but its a freaking diagram not highbrow art, and those barbiesque chicks tend to be in 'work in progress section'.

they make guys look like Action Man, complete with muscles and guns.
Still, you never complain about them.

[Rod Seffen]

How do you know I never complain about them?
Have you checked though all my 662 posts? :P
Anyway, it's these ridiculous proportional systems and 'the perfect body' templates that annoy me.
Out of the 20 or so women who I know, none of them look like that, they are all completely different, ranging from 6'2" with broad shoulders and huge breasts to 4'9" and skinny, to obese, to having hips almost as wide as they are tall, to flat chested...some have the figures closer to a male, some have figures closer to children, and it's those differences that make them interesting to real artists.
The very idea of promoting some fantasy of ideal proportions is no better than the nazis measuring people's skulls to decide which were pure Aryan and which were scum.

[DigitalBlaspheme]

oDDity, seeing as your speaking of intelligence being a prime factor for you perceptions, I'd assume you'd have no issues with the same information being described in this light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio


There are no pictures of barbie dolls there. Only math. I do understand where you are coming from though. It's like every realistic characture that is made today is proportionally perfect. I don't like this either...which is a reason I don't post my WIP's until they are finished. I like to take a different route with proportions. I go by the rule- if it looks right....it's good enough. When I start getting crits on how the shoulders don't fit the body I "grrr" to myself. The pic isn't about the shoulders....talk about focusing on the trees in the forest when you're trying to measure the size of the forest.



Intellectually speaking (this is assuming you have not only a higher IQ, but the desire to use it) we are in the minority. The minority seldom wins, especially when it goes against what is natural.....and the golden ratio is nothing but natural.

[Rod Seffen]

No, I don't agree with golden proportions. Renaissance artists were even more obsessed with perfection then some people are here, artists like Leonardo were totally obsessed with it, but of course, this was all tied in with religion, and the idea that god-made creatures should be perfect.
We know a lot better these days.
If some people can only see beauty in something that matches up to an artificially constructed concept of idealism, then I pity them.

[DigitalBlaspheme]

Like I said, we are the minority, especially in a group of peers. Others outside this culture may see the idea behind your image because they aren't as focused on the details. But within this circle......know that perfect proportions are almost demanded from every artist. Those that go against that grain, well we get it force fed to us. You can take my name as proof that I am of the same mind as you...so plz don't take this as an argument inducing response. If any of my art is proportionally correct....it was a fluke.

[teahtime]

After years of life drawing, I learnt nobody is propotionally accurate. I do get bothered by all the comments that go with 2D and 3D images that look good, and without reference images people immediately say "Eyes are too big" or "too far apart"...according to what scale? blah blah blah, I agree with Oddity.

"inocorrect" propotions invoke more realistic traits. So long as you can keep those proportions through images of blood relatives, and they work (i.e. bones and muscle).

[aleica]

Oh, my God! My fellow Americans, come here and take a look on this comment!!....
That's because the sort of little perverts who hang around CG forums don't tend make pouting male figures in g-stings, with soft lighting and an alluring gaze to camera, the way they do with nude females.
Basically, when the sort of unsophisticated, uneducated males who make up 90% of the population of CG forums create character models, they tend to revert to childhood, so they make girls look like Barbie dolls, and they make guys look like Action Man, complete with muscles and guns.

[aleica]

Give me a break, oDDity. It's just a basic proportion graph, not grand jury hearing. :)

How do you know I never complain about them?
Have you checked though all my 662 posts? :P
Anyway, it's these ridiculous proportional systems and 'the perfect body' templates that annoy me.
Out of the 20 or so women who I know, none of them look like that, they are all completely different, ranging from 6'2" with broad shoulders and huge breasts to 4'9" and skinny, to obese, to having hips almost as wide as they are tall, to flat chested...some have the figures closer to a male, some have figures closer to children, and it's those differences that make them interesting to real artists.
The very idea of promoting some fantasy of ideal proportions is no better than the nazis measuring people's skulls to decide which were pure Aryan and which were scum.

[Quadart]

aleica, I have to say the reference image in the example posted is horrible. The originator could have used a more symmetrical and static frontal view to meter from. The woman is standing on her toes with her head down, with a measurement taken from a pile of hair well above her scalp. You can make any conclusion you want with unreliable reference like that.

Yes, the Golden ratio, Fibonacci number, Phi ratio is an intriguing constant that is reflected in many structures and processes in nature that we also find aesthetically pleasing. Yes, the Phi ratio does correlate with quite a few paired anatomical references. It also has no relation to many more. I think using 3rds, halves and head size is suitable for generally metering out body part proportions, if you need a metering technique. I hope who ever uses a hyper critical method of “divinely proportioning” a figure using Phi, and or any other method, has an equally hyper critical aesthetic sensibility to take the work to a finished state, whether it be a 3d model or a painting. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time.


I use the Phi ratio the most when I want to make a perfect pentagram using Adobe Illustrator’s Star Tool (Radius 1 = 1.618, Radius 2= 0.618). :)

[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.