PDA

View Full Version : Character: Photoreal female


visgoth
07-07-2003, 10:08 PM
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/head_front_d.jpg

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/head_side_d.jpg
(pardon the lovely shadowing artifacts, the renderer decided to be uncooperative)

The wires:
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/images/info/female_wires_head_front.gif
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/images/info/female_wires_head_side.gif

Software used: Softimage|XSI 3.5
13554 points, 0 triangles, 13510 quads, 0 polys with 5+ pts.

I'm seeking precise, merciless critiques on the proportions of this head. Please don't base comments on personal taste, but rather on hard facts. I've been noodling away at this model in my spare time for far too long, and want to move on to the next stages. However, being a nitpicky old fart I always end up finding somthing to tweak, but now I think I am satisfied :)

SDIT
07-07-2003, 11:32 PM
the neck looks a little too long. Then your ears look flat on the side vew. You could round it a little more and they seem to be sticking out a lot. I like the nose and the eyes.
good start

visgoth
07-08-2003, 04:59 AM
I'll take a look at tweaking the ears a bit. I'm pretty sure the neck is ok, maybe a touch thin, but nothing I can't fix in a few seconds.

Here's a few images of her overall body:

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/body_front_d.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/body_back_d.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/body_3q_d.jpg

and here's some wires:

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/images/info/female_wires_front.gif
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/images/info/female_wires_back.gif

jrwells
07-08-2003, 06:27 AM
Looks pretty good, however, the eyes are spaced a little far apart, they should be about the distance of an eye lenght apart. The front view of the ears make them look a little high, but I am not sure because the side view looks near perfect. The neck might be a little thin, but I don't think it looks off at all, I would personally not touch it.

It is obvious that you mirrored the sides of the head and combined them together. If you want it too look more realistic you need to slightly shift the position and/or rotation of the eyes and ears. Also, the ears are a little sharp around the folds, this will probably be fixed when textured, but they feel too rough.

The only other crit that I have is that the skull is too smooth, I know you may plan to add hair so it is not a big deal, but if you are interested in that, I would add a little texture to it to give it a more lifelike feal.

Stoehr
07-08-2003, 06:44 AM
Here's what I see needs work on her head:
1. The eyes (indvidually) are too wide.
2. The eyes are spaced too far apart (the tear duct should line up with the outside of the nostrils)
3. The top of her head seems too square. Still very much like a box.
4. The jaw line looks almost parallel to the ground. You may want to angle it towards the bottom of the ear lobe.

I wouldn't touch the lips and nose.

Is the wireframe the base geometry, or is it the subdivided?

Stoehr
07-08-2003, 07:10 AM
After taking a second look at your wireframes I think my above comments on the eyes still stand, but it's not as much as I thought. It looks as though your camera is distorting you character. Your camera is probably 24 or 35 millimeter lens? Try a 50 millimeter lens to relieve the distortion (fish-eye effect) when rendering extreme close-ups.

visgoth
07-08-2003, 08:44 PM
Looks pretty good, however, the eyes are spaced a little far apart, they should be about the distance of an eye lenght apart.

I moved them together slightly, and may move em more if need be.

It is obvious that you mirrored the sides of the head and combined them together.

Yes, I'm going to tweak one half once everything's settled. Just minor shifts to break up the symmetry.

The eyes (indvidually) are too wide.

I pulled the outer corner in a bit, but as with the distance apart I'll move it in if its still not enough.

Is the wireframe the base geometry, or is it the subdivided?

That's the base geomerty in all the wires I posted.

I also tweaked the jawline a bit, bringing it up a touch. The ears I'll muck around with a bit, but they're a pain in the butt so I may just do some minor stuff.

Anyhow here's the tweaked front:
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/head_front_e.jpg

Solace9
07-08-2003, 10:01 PM
Hey, i really like your full body detail.
The muscle and bones look great at a glance, i'll have to scrutinize them later, but i did want to comment on the face's eye right now:

Matt's right, though i've seen grls who have eyes that spread out, if you're going for "real", then classic proportions are likely a better choice for this project. However, like i said, i've seen grls like that, and it gives a japanime touch to have wide eyes w/ wide placement.



:beer:

Joebount
07-08-2003, 11:32 PM
the eyes aren't too wide but they must be separated by the width of one eye. Looks really nice.

Aearon
07-09-2003, 12:15 AM
i might be wrong but i think it's 1 1/2 as far as i know, looks ok to my anyway

great model visgoth, but i think it looks too stylized overall to be considered photorealistic.

also, there is a problem around the mouth, try making the upper lip overlap the lowerone at the edges, right now the lips look "stuck on" if you look at that area

jrwells
07-09-2003, 03:21 AM
The tweaked version looks much better. I still think the eyes may be a touch too far apart, but I am not basing that on measurement, so it may just be a personaly preference, but to look into her eyes feels like I am straining my eyes, but that may just be cause by the angle the eyeballs are pointed, I would like to see the model fixated on a object about 2 feet in front of the screen. Raising the jaw really thinned out the lower half of her face, and this is a great improvement.

I don't agree that the face is too stylized, I think that will all change when you get it textured, right now the soft plastic effect does not do this model justice. But reguardless, she is beautiful. I can't wait to see it finished.

gmask
07-09-2003, 03:24 AM
The eyes look a tad too far apart and the ears seem crinkled and a bit angular on the lobes.

tomb
07-09-2003, 05:15 AM
The edges of the lips could use some smoothing on especially on the bottom lip. Comparing them to this ref you can see how the bottom lip comes out too much. The top lip almost always comes out further than the bottom one. The lips should also come up a bit making the chin taller and the gap between the nose and mouth shorter.

Laa-Yosh
07-09-2003, 02:39 PM
Very nice model... couple of crits:

It may be because of the camera angle, but the ears seem to be too high up.

Also, add more mass to the eyelids, especially the upper ones. Try to study some reference pictures, you'll be surprised how thick they actually are.

The area between the upper lip and the nose should be more curved inwards. And the bridge of the nose is too straight in the side view, add some curvature there too.

Neil
07-09-2003, 05:55 PM
eye spacing is one things.

No mentioned are the cheek bones. It makes it look masculine.

visgoth
07-09-2003, 06:32 PM
It may be because of the camera angle, but the ears seem to be too high up.

I shifted the camera angle down a bit, so that should give a better sense of the positioning of her ears. Also, I went to this site (http://www.beautyanalysis.com) and grabbed the guides. In the side view (I'll post one later) her ear lines up alright.

Also, add more mass to the eyelids, especially the upper ones. Try to study some reference pictures, you'll be surprised how thick they actually are.

Hmm, I think i get what you are saying. Just move the faces out along their normals?

but i think it looks too stylized overall to be considered photorealistic

Hmm, I'm hoping this is because I just symmetried her over from one half. I will definitely make her assymetrical once I'm happy with the modeling.

The edges of the lips could use some smoothing on especially on the bottom lip.

I did some smoothing, maybe not enough yet. That comparison was helpful, was it off fineart.sk? I'm pretty sure I've seen that image before :) I'll try some other stuff with the mouth and see what happens.

No mentioned are the cheek bones. It makes it look masculine.

Hmm, could you be more specific? Also I'd rather avoid everyone stating their own personal tastes, as then it just becomes a debate on beauty, which is just too subjective :)

Here's the latest revision. Eyes moved in a tad more (i'll add some thickness to the lower lid to start... it does look strange now that Laa-Yosh mentions it)

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/head_front_f.jpg

Also, just for the hell of it I overlaid that beautyanalysis guide on this render:

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/head_front_f_proportion_guide.jpg

It's a little off because the camera is not 100% straight on, but most stuff lines up pretty good (surprisingly)

tomb
07-10-2003, 05:40 AM
Yeah that ref was from fineart.sk. The smoothing looks better although as you said it needs more. This paintover attached more closely matches the beauty analysis guide...

BigSky
07-11-2003, 01:25 PM
For what it's worth, I think that you have a beautiful model here. Lengthening the nose to fit the beauty guide weakens the model, IMO. My only crit would be in the sharp transition across the upper lip to lips.
She's fine.

Solace9
07-11-2003, 10:48 PM
concerning Tomb's last post:
I think both forms are fine, but the later "fix" looks like Carrie Ann Moss.

Where are the updates?! :drool:

L&RviaS9

webfox
07-15-2003, 01:49 AM
If the eyes were closer together, then you wouldn't feel the need to lengthen the nose to fit the beauty guide. Because everything's proportional, as the eyes get nearer to each other, the length of the nose will appear to fit to the guide better.

Jed
07-17-2003, 10:03 PM
I like where the model is going, but you should NEVER model a character with the hands facing that way. You're going to have some huge rigging problems later on, and this should be adressed right now. Rotate the hands so the palms are facing inwards and your model will deform much better later on.

Good work

gmask
07-17-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Jed
you should NEVER model a character with the hands facing that way. You're going to have some huge rigging problems later on, and this should be adressed right now. Rotate the hands so the palms are facing inwards and your model will deform much better later on.


Really? The method you describe certainly seems to be way most everyone does it but as I look at my own arm modelling with the hand down is more deformed than with that palm facing forward because the ulna and radius are twisted.. wouldn't it make more sense to model them untwisted as he has done?

visgoth
07-18-2003, 12:04 AM
I modeled her arms with palms forward to avoid having the radius and ulna cross over. I don't anticipate any rigging problems, although I must admit I havn't used this method for modeling arms before. It should work fine, and I really don't see why palms down is the "standard". I've never been one to blindly follow what others do... ;)

Jed
07-18-2003, 08:13 PM
The reason why the palms down approach is the standard is that it allows your hands to twist in both directions without too much deformation. The palms forward is an extreme pose for a character, and you're going to twist your forearm 180 degrees if your animation has the palms facing backwards. On the other hand, You will probably never have to twist her wrist in the other direction since it is already such an extreme pose.

gmask
07-18-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Jed
The palms forward is an extreme pose for a character, and you're going to twist your forearm 180 degrees if your animation has the palms facing backwards.

The only way I can rotate my wrist 180 degrees is to turn my whole arm otherwise I can only turn it about 100 degrees tops before I have to turn my upper arm. In either case if it's an issue of math you want the default position to be closer to the middle of the full range of rotation and as far as I can palm forward is closer to the middle than palm down.

http://gmask.com/odd/armrot.jpg

webfox
07-18-2003, 10:17 PM
I really don't see why palms down is the "standard".

The less you have to deform your model to get it to do what you want it to do, the less you have to mess around and waste time working on every morph target or blend shape that needs to be used to correct the deformations.

We type with our hands face down, work on the car with the hands face down, prepare dinner with the hands face down, and even relax with our hands face down. The rest of the time the hands face inward, like when we eat with a fork or spoon, but rarely ever hold our palms upward. If the hands are face down 80-90% of the time, it makes sense to model them in that position.

I've never been one to blindly follow what others do...

Didn't you just apply someone else's beauty standard template to your model's face on the previous page? Kinda ironic that you wrote that.

(You have a very, very beautiful model going. It'd be a shame to see you have difficulty rigging it just because you had an antiauthoritarian streak going on now.

Please do change the features on the face more, like everyone's suggesting. She's got a fetal alcohol syndrome thing going on. Eye's too far apart, flat top to her head... and the lips need to blend more smoothly with the face at the corners. Like the attached pic...

Good luck on your project.

gmask
07-18-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by webfox
The less you have to deform your model to get it to do what you want it to do, the less you have to mess around and waste time working on every morph target or blend shape that needs to be used to correct the deformations.

We type with our hands face down, work on the car with the hands face down, prepare dinner with the hands face down, and even relax with our hands face down. The rest of the time the hands face inward, like when we eat with a fork or spoon, but rarely ever hold our palms upward. If the hands are face down 80-90% of the time, it makes sense to model them in that position.


You still have to create the shape of the arm for that %20 that the hand is not palm down otherwise how can shake hands, salute or give the finger ;-) You hold a sword and a gun palm out which is more likely to be the need in a game environment than to hold a fork or work on a car.

I really don't think it makes a difference how you do it but if the pipeline in a facility is geared one way of the other than you'd probably have to conform to it.

webfox
07-18-2003, 10:35 PM
You still have to create the shape of the arm for that %20 that the hand is not palm down

Yes, but that still beats making two shapes for the 180 degree twist if you build the model with the palms upward.

You're absolutely right in your observations. I'm just explaining why we don't build our models in positions they'll never get used for.

gmask
07-18-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by webfox
Yes, but that still beats making two shapes for the 180 degree twist if you build the model with the palms upward.

You're absolutely right in your observations. I'm just explaining why we don't build our models in positions they'll never get used for.

I'm only talking about two positions. Default which would be palms out and palm down which would be a deformation and then in order to get palms up you have to rotate the whole arm..not the wrist. Either way you cut it you only need one deformation for the lower arm to account for twist. In other words the wrist at best only has 135 degrees of rotation before the rest of the arms starts to turn with it.

As for what the positions get used for.. when thinking about boxing if you are throwign an upper cut then it's palms out whereas a jab is palms down. I guess a catalog of moves for a particular game could prove weighted more or less one way or the other. But I'm still seeing that it could go either way.

webfox
07-18-2003, 11:01 PM
I get at least 160-170 degrees of wrist rotation before my upper arm has to follow.

http://www.cfoxgraphics.com/temp/rotation.jpg

To accurately model it's rotation, I'd need a begin shape, a middle shape and an end shape, otherwise the muscles and hair on my forearm wouldn't follow around naturally.

Of course one builds their model and rig to do what the shots call for, so I guess we're on the same side, but not quite agreeing on the extents.

:beer:

gmask
07-18-2003, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by webfox
I get at least 160-170 degrees of wrist rotation before my upper arm has to follow.


I dunno from looking at your elbow it looks like there is some twist there.. I was gauging the extent based on how far I could turn my wrist before I noticed any twist in the upper arm. I guess the only way to truly measure this is to lock you arm down so that you can't rotate it from above the elbow.

As for the arm hair .. shouldn't the texture just follow the surface? As long as the distortion is proportional you shouldn't see stretching?

webfox
07-18-2003, 11:41 PM
There's no twist in my upper arm. I wouldn't have posted just to disagree unless I felt I was being honest. After taking chemical engineering in college, I can confidently say that I can conduct a proper and impartial experimental setup, though I am not the best one-handed photographer in the world. ;)

The crease does appear to move and makes the elbow look like it has shifted, but that's because it's pulled with the skin. The elbow joint didn't turn.

I'm done geeking out over this, though. The question that I thought I had addressed was why we don't build the model in positions that we never intend to use, and I stand by my statements.

gmask
07-18-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by webfox
There's no twist in my upper arm. I wouldn't have posted just to disagree unless I felt I was being honest. After taking chemical engineering in college, I can confidently say that I can conduct a proper and impartial experimental setup, though I am not the best one-handed photographer in the world. ;)


I did another experiment with my elbow on a table and my arm bent and I culd pretty much get a full 180 rotation. I wasn't calling you dishonest :love:

Anyway not to beg the the issue but it is a position that is often used.. I named several common examples that could imagine being very frequently needed in games and probably in anything action related with a character.

I guess what you are saying is that if you model the far extents that the middle position or palms out position will be a natural interpolation of the far extents but from the rigging I have done whenever something is allowed to twist and untwist it tends to get skinny and you'd have to have that third position anyway.

I think this is good info..I'm not trying to be difficult :cool:

visgoth
07-19-2003, 03:51 AM
Didn't you just apply someone else's beauty standard template to your model's face on the previous page? Kinda ironic that you wrote that.

(You have a very, very beautiful model going. It'd be a shame to see you have difficulty rigging it just because you had an antiauthoritarian streak going on now.


I'm not really following that template, I just posted that image to show that the major features are lining up more or less. I don't see anything wrong with questioning established norms, how else is any progress made? In any case, this discussion on the pros and cons of modeling palms up/down is pretty interesting.

I've done a few tweaks more to her, and here's an image:

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/projection_comparison.jpg

I think I'm pretty much done with it now. I've tapered off sharpness of the upper lip toward the edges, but at the center I'm keeping it. As for the skull, check out Demi Moore in GI Jane, she's got a similarly shaped head. I did move the eyes in one final time, so that shouldn't be a problem. My guess is the camera's fov was set too wide, and the resulting fisheye effect was making her look weird.

jellyfish
07-23-2003, 02:59 AM
I know it's been a few days since an update on this thread, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I must strongly disagree with those that say move her eyes inwards. Although the "generic" face is approx. 1 eye width between the eyes, as with all things human this is subject to much variation, and I think the widely-spaced eyes is one of the most interesting features of this face. DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THEM AGAIN (spacing wise, at least). :)

I'm actually really surprised at all the crits you had, seems like most changes suggested were actually just the natural diversity you get from your genes, not any actual technical flaws. Jawline, ears, etc, are way more interesting when they don't strictly conform to some weizenheimer's "beauty guide".

Now, the real reason for this reply is the disturbing Ortho image you posted. I see the one we've been viewing has been a 20 degree perspective. Is this the same as a 20mm focal point lens? Is 20 degrees equivalent to 50mm lens? I understand 50mm is approximately what our eyes operate at.

jellyfish

visgoth
07-23-2003, 05:11 AM
Hmm, I checked the camera properties and found that a 20 degree horizontal fov = a focal length of 13.6111 mm, which is really weirding me out. I'm using a much more telephoto lens to counteract the fisheye effect up close. I'll try rendering with different focal lengths and seeing what the results are.

Also, I won't touch the eyes again, I promise ;)

visgoth
08-29-2003, 09:00 PM
Update time!

Here's what she's looking like with a very, very perliminary rig:

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/rigtest.jpg

Don't mind the hands, they're not even remotely setup yet.

wgreenlee1
08-29-2003, 09:11 PM
WOW!
Looking great but there is something about her legs....
They seem to too much muscle on the fronts and behind they do not have enough.
Looking great though.

gmask
08-29-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by visgoth
Update time!

Here's what she's looking like with a very, very perliminary rig:

Don't mind the hands, they're not even remotely setup yet.

Hmm I think the upper arm is a bit shorter than it should be and the forearm is abit longer than it should be..

JamesMK
08-29-2003, 09:44 PM
I have to second the remark about the length of the upper arms vs forearms. They do not look quite right.

That aside, I'm quite stunned. Truly excellent modeling.

credmond
08-30-2003, 03:07 AM
I think the whole palms in or out discussion has more to do with the shoulder than the wrist. The shoulder is the trickiest place to skin and rig correctly and the popular methods of arranging the body for skinning all reflect the importance of the shoulder.

So basically if you start with your arms and hands at your side and perfectly at rest, raise your arms to a 45 degree or a 90 degree angle to their sides to get the two most popular skinning/rigging position.

Reason: the single rotation required to go from there to the natural rest, hands at side position. Keeping in mind what the arm does while entirely at rest is key to good skinning since you want the rest position to be your skinned position.

Basically, you want the rest position, or the closest facsimile, to be what your model assumes by default. You don't want it to be the other way around where you have a non-rest position as the skin pose and you have to make corrections to get a good looking rest position. This is still just a rule of thumb. Of course if you have a series of shots for a character and the arms are in funky weird positions you might seriously consider skinning to privilege those positions.

Another popular skinning or rigging position is the 45 degree shoulder, 45 degree elbow, and wrist at zero. This works because its a very restful position, if that makes sense.

RazzBlade
08-30-2003, 08:04 PM
The Line from her sturnum running down the center of her abdomen to what some would call the "lunch box" seems to be pulling away from the sturnum in this pose (its awfully straight, and looks rigid). could be an eye sore during animation if the mid riff will be seen...no?

visgoth
08-30-2003, 09:09 PM
I've fixed the upperarm/lower arm length issue, and did some tweaking of the skinning to make the abdomen deform a bit better.

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/twist_1.jpg

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/twist_2.jpg

I'm going to go back in and add an extra segment to her spine so she can bend forward a little better. Right now with 3 links for the whole chain she can arch back nicely, but going forward looks rather bad. I'm also looking at adding an extra link to her neck chain. Aside from that I should be set to move on to modeling the morph targets that will make the hips, shoulders, knees and elbows bend properly.

JHarford
09-02-2003, 09:52 AM
brilliant :) really nice work i like it lot, all i can say is id like to see the hand set up , and the muscles around the thigh could use some lookin

Neox
09-06-2003, 01:01 PM
she is far away from photoreal but that doesn't matter she is perfectly stilized, much better then a "simple" photoreal character, she has style and thats what counts not how far you can come to realtity... if you want a real woman grab your camera and take some pictures ;)

visgoth
09-10-2003, 11:18 PM
she has style and thats what counts not how far you can come to realtity... if you want a real woman grab your camera and take some pictures

I have been caught between trying to make a realistic character, and yet keep her "idealized". I don't think the two can mix well, since one tends to cancel the other out. You're right though, if I really wanted photoreal women I'd just grab a camera. Or, as my friend once said "If I want to see photoreal people I'll just go to the supermarket" :P

In any case, I've been working on using a cage deformer to drive the highres mesh. I needed to build a number of morph targets to fix some skinning issues, and to get the muscles to bend and flex more believeably. If I'm not mistaken, a similar technique was used in Final Flight of the Osiris. Here's what she's looking like at the moment:

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/posed8.jpg

http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/posed9.jpg

The hands, arms and feet don't have any corrective morphs yet, so they do have some issues at the moment.

ukyo
09-11-2003, 06:18 PM
wow man, really nice work, i cant believe i missed this one for so long. im right there with you on that debat for real and stylized. the character im working on now is an angel and i was caught in a debat with myself on to make him real or stylized real. and in the end i decided that it was important as an artist to allow my style to show through, how else would my character have originality. i think its important to have some of ou in your model otherwise it really is just a ohotgraph of supermarket people.

really beautiful model i would love to see a current wiremesh, and shes deforming really nice. the lighting is cool too even if its just a temp light. she kinda reminds me of joleen bollack the vulcan chic on enterprise.

visgoth
09-11-2003, 07:15 PM
Here's her lowres cage (http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/cage_posed.gif) and her highres mesh (http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/highres_posed.gif) in the same pose as the previous two renders.

alexyork
09-12-2003, 12:09 AM
1st of all VERY nice work... as usual another depressingly good artist on here. So keep it up.

ONE crit... she's not exactly very...um... er... "feminine" is she? She looks like she could crush my pair without a second thought... but maybe that's what your going for.

But the modelling itself is supurb. I'd be tempted to put her in a more naturalistic pose.

Anyway keep it up.

visgoth
09-12-2003, 12:13 AM
ONE crit... she's not exactly very...um... er... "feminine" is she? She looks like she could crush my pair without a second thought... but maybe that's what your going for.

Then my mission is accomplished :) I was going for the err, "tough chick" look in a way. I'm planning on doing a short animation with her. Nothing terribly original, think La Femme Nikita meets Ghost in the Shell and other such goodness. I always found it silly watching stuff like Charlie's Angels where these waifs are kicking the crap out of people, and decided I'd try and make my character look like she could actually hold her own in a fight.

alexyork
09-12-2003, 12:52 AM
Well in that case, my friend.. as they say it "kicks ass".

Congrats :buttrock:

visgoth
01-23-2004, 07:18 PM
http://members.rogers.com/rtrska/misc/images/girlhead_revised.jpg

I did a bunch of changes, then shelved this character for months... dug her up and did a couple more tweaks. I might eventually do a texture and such for her, but that's after i get a working rig (not for a while though, got a ton of other stuff on my plate).

Anyhow, she should look less "butch" now than before. Her body is pretty much the same, aside from some very minor tweaks to the topology, but nothing that would warrant posting up.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 03:00 PM
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.