COOL new link!

[LoGiY]

i wonder how they tex that lol

[sebek27]

it's done in c4d ??

[squidinc]

theres no way that second one is 3d, no chance

[flingster]

mind blowing stuff.....especially those to heads...texturing is incredible whether its done in c4d or not!!

[kromekat]

Hmmm - well if it is CG, then I am stunned, especially the second one, but I have doubt...

The world is flat you know! ;)

[flingster]

would you believe if it had post production/photoshop'd afterwards...hard to believe as straight render i agree.

[Neoklassik]

The eyes really sell it. The first one I can tell, even with really good skin textures you see nowadays, the skin usually looks very slightly off and he's got a little of that that "3d stare".

The second one I can't tell.. wow.
I hafta believe it.. especially looking at the first head.. it's only a step farther.
If so I gotta say I love the pimple.. hehe

Awesome.

[Brent Turbo]

This work is 100% legit. These guys have been around for quite a while, and actually, these images aren't exactly brand new. They did them in Maya (that's classic Maya DOF), I know that much, and their skin shader looks great. Now how these would look animated is a different story...

[Neoklassik]

If there is post work I'd say it's the shadow on they eyes. Now that I look at the first one in fact the shadow looks almost like a zorro mask. Runs across the bridge of the nose? Hmm.. on my powerbook so can't make it out very well. I can't out much else that would be post, or that you couldn't get from texturing in the app.

[Katachi]

Originally posted by squidinc
theres no way that second one is 3d, no chance

sorry to tell you, but it really is :) Those are "old" ones that are definetly stunning BUT they are 3D for sure. They also won several prices, and I remember they won Animago 2(?) years ago?
Or was it another 3D award. Don´t remember exactly but it is 3D. As Mr. Turbo says, it´s MAYA.

Best
Samir

[Katachi]

Hmm, I can´t find that old lady pic on their site. :hmm: That one is also....out of this world

[Deestrakt]

thx modestmouse. i saw them some time ago but i forgot the link. now its bookmarked ;)

btw, i would tend to think that maybe they use, at least for the second one, some photos of "real" skin. like having good high res shots of a face from different angles (possibly, the face that is modelled) and some photoshop tweaking.

what do u guys think about that ? i did read a long thread about realistic skins in the texturing section of cgtalk, but this thread somehow went wrong and got close. anyway, it appears that some ppl, includind some in professional context, mentionned using skin photos as a way to achieve a realistic touch more easily and faster, while some others seems to consider that as being lazy and somehow "not fair".

i made a quick and rough try and had the impression that, yes, it does help.

whats your opinion ?

[Brent Turbo]

Deestrakt:
Skin is never gonna look quite right if you just use a straight scan. You're not going to be able to get around painting on top of that, or it's just not going to look right. Photos can be a good starting point, however.

Now on the subject of scanning and it being a "cheat," it really depends on what you consider CG to be. CG is all about turning over nice renders to a client, right? So if using scans of skin produces great renders, then who cares how you got there? The final render is, literally, everything. The person on the other end is never going to see your wireframes. If the anti-scanners are in this for dicipline, rules, and process, then I think they may be more suited for fine art.

[AdamT]

You can do pretty well using patterns derived from skin photos as a base/bump layer. As Brent said, you won't win any prizes just slapping a photo on a model because there's no way to eliminate the lighting that was present when the photo was taken. These models always end up looking like zombies.

[Deestrakt]

i agree with both of u guys, it didnt mean that it was just about mapping a nice photo of a face onto a 3D model. first, as u said Adam, because u have to deal with how the skin was liten when the pic was taken (although maybe u could try to match your lighting settings in the CG scene with light conditions when pic was taken? ). but also because u not only have to deal with color given by the skin photo, but also with bump, diffuse, spec, even translucency, etc.

and i also agree that 100% CG is not always was is actually used. we know, for exemple, that studios can use real sculptures of characters, that are "3D scanned" (dunno the name for this process) to provide a mesh that will be refined.
another exemple is mocap maybe, where real movements are used as a base to generate CG characters movements.

basically, i guess that theres no problem if u r clear about what u used (if asked, of course :D)

[kromekat]

btw, i would tend to think that maybe they use, at least for the second one, some photos of "real" skin. like having good high res shots of a face from different angles (possibly, the face that is modelled) and some photoshop tweaking.

what do u guys think about that ?

I would say so, although the shader that carries the texture is important.

The final image/animation is the important part, how you get there is utterly irrelavent - CG is about 'smoke and mirrors', it's all about illusion, so I don't buy into 'rules' or 'fair/not fair' and never did as a painter either!

Use whatever is available and gets the desired result IMO!

[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.