Character: real girl

[Jbo123]

The earlobe should not run directly into the jawbone. And speaking of the jawbone, it should not be so sharp, it looks like she has some sort of tube implanted in her face that goes around her jaw. The cheeks are looking pretty flat. One more thing, from a front view of anyone, you should not be able to see directly up the nose. Are you just using this 3/4 shot for reference? Because if so, you need to get some front and side shots.

Sorry if this seems harsh, but i'm just trying to help. Nobody learns anything from positive critique.

[Akkalis]

Are you working from a front and side, as well as the three quarter?

Also, can we get a wireframe? Around the nose and lips it looks like you are fighting with the mesh, and getting some wierd folds and sharpness.

[philnolan3d]

Not harsh at all, nothing but useful suggestions. I do have front and side shots, I just used the 3/4 here. Actually I have just about every angle you could want. Thanks for the tips, I'm working on the body now, but I'll fix those things shortly. Here's a wireframe along with the front and side photos.
http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/real_girl_WIP_wire_01.jpg

[Akkalis]

Okay, three biggest areas I see, are the mouth is too wide and the lips look like the wrong shape and such. Actually, not wrong shape perse, not shapely enough. Seconldy the nose looks like an issue.

The nose is also too big, and too strong. Soften it up a bit. Actually, that could be said for most of the face. Make it softer and that can be said for the majority of the head.

Also, I do think you are fighting with the mesh a little bit. Try looking up the Joan of Arc Tutorial and just look at the final low res mesh of her head and the way the topology runs.

And one final thing, the skullshape in the back is wrong, I think her hair is throwing you. The round part of her skull should probably end about the level of her ear, where the jaw meets the cranium and then flow into the neck.

Keep working, you trying to make something look 'real' well, based off a real picture anyway, and its tough. Keep at it, and it will come.

[philnolan3d]

Thanks, perhaps the nose is too big in a 3D sense. I know there are some things that look fine in real life, but not quite so in 3D. The nose follows the photos exactly. I too was thinking it looked kind of oddly big, but I thought "well, it follows the photos, so I guess it's alright"

I'm not sure what you mean by fighting the geometry, but I did see a spot under each nostral where I had 2 triangles next to eachother, that was easily fixed. I've also made the nostril now less visible from the front, made the crease better on the outside of her eyes, and softened up her jaw quite a bit.

[Akkalis]

Okay, after this post I must sleep, I must. I need to get out of this 6am bedtime habit... But on a more relevant topic, your model...

What I mean when I say fighting with the mesh, I mean, trying to figure out how your going to build what you want and still control the mesh. Or Get what you want out of the mesh you have.

Anyway, you are right about the size of the nose, it IS the right size... But your is far bolder, and more defined, hers is softer, an rounder. Also, I think the face looks flat because your cheek bones are very far forward. Also, the check itself does not flow into the nose, the nose just kind of juts out of the face (which is a touch flat atm) which makes it look longer.

Right now, if I were you, I'd work on softing out the basic shape, then going into add all the tedious stuff required to make it look 'photo-real' or whatever.

Anyway, I go to bed now. :wavey:

[WanielJorge]

:rolleyes: See the inferior side of the lips, it seems not to check with the photographic reference!!:wip:

[philnolan3d]

Thanks for the advise. I found that Joan of Arc tutorial and unfortunatly much of it goes against my teachings from a professional modeler. It's interesting to see what other people are doing though.

[JHarford]

ok, what he meant above was that the mesh isnt flowing.
topology, research it, look at the muscle structure of the face and then make loops around your mesh where the muscles are.
for example the eyess, they should have a circular loop for the inner eyes the loops all the way to where the nose is, and then thats it, like a pair of goggles.
then you have the mouth , should be on its own in the mddle of a loop going around the top of the nose to the chin ,
all this helps you tremendously with animating , making facial expressions and general getting a smooth mesh ,

i think you know the problem with the jaw, it may look that way but in fact it isnt at all .

Joe. gl hf

http://www.metagons.com/dsarticle04.htm

check out that link, 1 amazing moddeling , and 2 some good edge loops.

]someone write spinquads plugin for xsi?]

[ThirdEye]

Originally posted by willohmsford
Thanks for the advise. I found that Joan of Arc tutorial and unfortunatly much of it goes against my teachings from a professional modeler. It's interesting to see what other people are doing though.


:surprised against your t...?!?!? OMFG! :scream:

[philnolan3d]

I know all about topology, but was never a big fan of the "loop" method. I just go by what looks good and what bends correctly. What I end up with might have these mystical loops in it, but I normally don't put them there on purpose. The only ones I do on purpose are the ones you see around the eyes and mouth. Here's the latest.
http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/real_girl_WIP_02.jpg

[Aros]

I think this will look alot better.

[Pauldls]

Looks good, but heres some suggestions. The nostrals still look a bit large or too pronounced. The rest of the nose still looks too strong and sharp, make it less defined. Also you should be able to see the ears from the front veiw, no? So far its looking good, keep it up :thumbsup:

[Akkalis]

Out of curiousity, how does it go against your teacher's method? Is it because it basically builds out polygon by polgy gone and doesn't get the overall shapes and things down first?

Also, who is your teacher? And when was the last time he professionally modelled?

As far as edgeloops go, they are smart, and they work, and you can get something workable and nice looking using them fairly simply.

Take a look at The Hobbit Guy's tutorial, it works along the same principles as Joan of Arc, but does it differently.

The Hobbit Guy's Head Tutorial (http://www.thehobbitguy.com/tutorials/polymodeling/index.html)

Mesh topology is important, especially later on when it comes to doing blendshapes (if you are doing them with some kind of temp structure with manual modifications) or a facial rig.

[philnolan3d]

The ears can be seen fron the front view, it just depends on the how much I was zoomed in, that shot was taken from the perspective view. As for my teacher, perhaps I worded that wrong. There were thing he taught us that weren't even mentioned in that tutorial, like the fold over the eyelid, or the (sorry I don't know the real name) line that runs from under the ear to the base of the neck in front, forming a V from the front view. And a few other things. His name's Matt Foley, I believe the most recent thing he did before he started teaching was lead character modeler for the Monsters Inc. video game.

[philnolan3d]

I'm curious if you "looping" guys use the box mdeling technique where you start from a box and push/pull it into shape. Or the extender/poly-by-poly method. We were taught to use the extender method and someone mentioned that loops seem to work best with box modeling.

[dur23]

Loops work best with practice....;)

[Akkalis]

I start by drawing most of my geometry flat in a profile, and then pulling out the points, and refining from there... Sort of like Box modeling, sort of like extender.

[xenxen]

I hate box modeling a face, spline modeling a face is okay but it can get screwy really fast. I built the face for my character: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85362 using a rough box, but started just sculpting it poly by poly. That can get tedios but if you've got the patience it be pretty rewarding. I tried to follow some of those tutorials online, like the Joan of arc one, but I just found that those methods didn't seem so logical in some areas. I ended up just forging my own way to build a face based on some good techniques from other artists. Your model looks sound enough, but I would seriously fix the skull like some of the other artists here have suggested. I think you ended up following a false contour of her head in the side profile. Also it looks like there's some smoothing issues around the ear, and I would suggest your taper the nose gently into the rest of the face. other than that, it's hella better than your volleyball girl model. Anime or not, she gave me the creeps :surprised

[philnolan3d]

Thanks, I actually have fixed the skull now and tweaked a few more things. I was waiting for a few more replies before posting another image so the thread wouldn't be quite so swamped with images. Plus it gave me more time to work on the body, which I'll post soon, I have the front half of the torso finished and am now working on the back. If nobody else knows of this, you can find Gray's Anatomy online at www.bartleby.com/107 . It's handy to have the image right on your screen while you work.

[philnolan3d]

Okay the torso is finished except for a few minor tweaks (I noticed the shoulder blade tops are weird after making this image). Here also is the head since the last post.
http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/real_girl_WIP_03.jpg
http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/real_girl_body_WIP_01.jpg

[WanielJorge]

:eek: I see that you seem not to be using photographic reference...see myWIP (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79633&perpage=15&pagenumber=3)

[urgaffel]

Ah, since you shun traditional edgeloop techniques and topology, you must be using the xdugef method.

[philnolan3d]

3D Strong - I saw your WIP already, very nice. What makes you think I'm not using photographic reference?
http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/body_photos.jpg

[philnolan3d]

I don't shun anything. As I've said before, I know about and pay close attention to topology. Looping may work fine for some people, it's just not my cup of tea.

[WanielJorge]

:rolleyes: I see that would be better you to use as reference a model more sculptural, more beautiful, of more universal proportions.:wip:

[philnolan3d]

So I should not shoot for realism, I should shoot for perfection. I haven't even started making her asymetrical yet.

[ThirdEye]

Originally posted by willohmsford
So I should not shoot for realism, I should shoot for perfection. I haven't even started making her asymetrical yet.


I wonder why you've already started with the body, the head could be improved a lot, especially the nose, the jaw and the eyebrows region.

[philnolan3d]

I started the body because I was waiting for a reply about the head

[philnolan3d]

Oh and what's wrong with the eyebrow region? This is the first I've heard of it and it looks fine to me.

[ThirdEye]

too sharp, she seems surprised, i can't see the flesh

[philnolan3d]

I'm not sure if you can see it properly, there are transparent polygons overlaying the skin geometry, which will be used for the eyebrow imagemaps.

[Akkalis]

I think what he is referring to, is the brow seems really high above the upper eyelid. Its in the right place I think, as far is its position, but he skin beneath it is far tighter on your model, an does not droop down over the upper eye lid like your referance does. I think thats especially true where the brow meets the nose, its very sharp and very distinict. Your referance picture is has a very soft, and rounded bridge on her nose, your model does not. Additionally, the bridge of the nose where it meets the brow is too narrow. The ear lobe also looks strange.

Basically, like any model (even professional models) at this stange in the game there are a lot of things you can tweak and fix. You've got everything in there, now its time to refine the hell out of it until it looks like your picture, or atleast looks 'good.' If you don't get a critique, you can still critique it yourself. And if someone says something looks wrong, in their opinion its wrong, but if in your honest opinion you think its right, well its your model (I sense you're getting a bit defensive because of the critiques, although I may be wrong). If the critiques are just one after another, and they are getting you down, there is a point where you just smile, nod (or just tell everyone to shut up and let you do it, although this method tends to only increase tentions) and work it until you think its the best. You then leave it at that, or you put on the kevlar...

Anyway, its coming along, I think you've got the base, and its a bit blocky. Round it out, soften up the features, have a few shots of tequila...

Also, what are you using to build it? Polies, nurbs, or is it what I think it is, LW's crazy Meta-Nurbs or whatever they call their Sub-Dish thing?

[philnolan3d]

I've noticed a character flaw about myself since I started posting here. I tend to come off as defensive, but no matter what I say I really do like the critiques and the help. Without it I might have something that I think looks good but nobody else likes.

I did see the sharpness under the eyebrow and fixed it. I think the transparent bit was actually blocking me from see it properly lol.

I'm working with Lightwave 7.5c (can't wait for my free copy of 8). I still have trouble following this rule, but I was taught to model in polygon mode and hit Tab every once in a while to switch to Sub-patches and check it. I tend to do the exact oposite. It just bugs me to not see the end result while I'm working. My character modeling teacher said something I'll always remember though. "If it looks good in poly mode, it'll look great sub-patched"

[Akkalis]

And he's right, most higher end models, when you just throw a face smooth on them they look pretty good, and then the Polysmooth is just nice...

Anyway, so long are you aren't really defensive, its all cool. Oh, I'd also recommend keeping out any extras while you're working on the surface (fancy eyes, hair, brows, etc).

Now back to work, and get some updates done! :wip:

[xenxen]

Dude that is one butt ugly woman. Oh well, I guess that it's true what they about beauty in the eye of the beholder. How much life drawing did you take in your 5 years at art school? Please don't take offense when I say this but i feel that I have to be blunt. If this was something that I set to paper or created on my computer, my instructors would have made me delete/scrap it and start over again and again until I got it right.

I agree tiwh 3DStrong, find a model reference that has more universal proportions, and more of a classical beauty. 3d.sk has some great reference, and it's great that there's a source that has so many different body types, but I really think you should start with more classical proportions.

It's easier to build at first, and much easier to correct as you go along. 3D modeling is like life drawing, it's all 98% observation, and about 2% technical skill (arguably). Still my point is that if you're going for realism, start with reference that is classical.

[philnolan3d]

Well Xenxen I'm sorry to say I have to dissagree, I feel that I've come up with a pretty good representation of the models I've chosen. And actually to quote your last post in this thread

"Your model looks sound enough, but I would seriously fix the skull like some of the other artists here have suggested."

Sounds like you changed your mind quite a bit. First it looks decent, next it's horrible?

[Aros]

Originally posted by willohmsford
Well Xenxen I'm sorry to say I have to dissagree, I feel that I've come up with a pretty good representation of the models I've chosen. And actually to quote your last post in this thread

"Your model looks sound enough, but I would seriously fix the skull like some of the other artists here have suggested."

Sounds like you changed your mind quite a bit. First it looks decent, next it's horrible?

I think he's talking about your reference.

[philnolan3d]

Oh well if that is the case, keep in mind I'm only using her for her body lol. I don't know if that remark was about her body or her face. At the start of this thread I posted the girl who's face I used.

[Aros]

Originally posted by willohmsford
keep in mind I'm only using her for her body lol.

If only I got 1 dollar every time I heard that ;)

[xenxen]

My fist post in here was in reference to your head mesh of the girl. The second was in reference to the "body" mesh for the girl. I tend not to agree on your idea of what a "pretty good representation" means.

[leigh]

Good to see that you weren't scared off from the forums after your last thread, willohmsford :)

I must admit though, that you should listen a little more closely to the crits given here instead of arguing with them though :sad:

Looking at your model and looking at your reference, I do not see much of a resemblance at all. I think your model still needs a lot of work and refinement, and I believe that the people suggesting new techniques for you to try are giving you some excellent pointers. Instead of simply arguing with them, rather try it out for yourself - you'll see the difference :)

About the looping thing, I cannot even begin to understand why your lecturer, this Matt Foley (at Dave School, yes?) does not teach this technique. How can great modelers like Bay Raitt be wrong in this? Looping is the idea way to get your form correct, and also facilitates the most accurate animation. You would be wise to use this technique if you want to attain the most accurate likeness and smooth animation in your model.

I don't necessarily agree that a person should always try and model with classical proportions, however I do feel that before you try and model a likeness to a specific person you could benefit from a generic human modelling tutorial. Before you try and model specific people, it's a great idea to get a good feel for a polygonal structure for the generic human form.

If you want to learn more about edge loops, you should check out the latest issue of Keyframe magazine - Richard Keating did a nice simple edge loop modelling tutorial of Edward Nortons head in LightWave :)

[xenxen]

much love to lightwave :D <- sorry shameless irrelevant post.

[philnolan3d]

Actually someone from school sent me a copy of that tutorial and I looked at it, but haven't had a chance to check into it yet. It does involve box modeling, which I never liked, but I guess the worst that can happen is that I waste a day or so of my time. Nobody said this looping thing was bad. I've tried it a bit and what I did say was that it was not my cup of tea.

[Jbo123]

Not your cup of tea? well, i don't know for sure, but i think concentric circles or loops are what everybody uses and I'm pretty sure it's the industry standard for facial animation and blend shapes; and also for just the overal clean look of the geometry. It works the best so why try to do it differently?

[philnolan3d]

Sure in some places it's necessary like around the eyes or mouth but running from the nostril around the mouth and making a U-turn to come up under the lower lip, or from the middle of the eye, around the nose and to the middle of the upper lip? I'm sorry I just can't see the point. Some of the "loops" look like they just took an existing mesh and followed a spline then said "look, I found a loop!" Like I said, my model has loops in it too, I can find them if I look for them. If it were the industry standard you'd think you would hear about it all over the place and that teachers would teach it. I went to a school full of industry professionals and never heard about this until I came to this forum. I don't mean to argue, but I'm afraid I can't just ignore everybody and not state my opinion. To quote my last post "I've tried it a bit..."

[urgaffel]

Regarding the whole loop thing... There's a great thread about head topology on this forum, which you can find here: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26813 (just looking at the first image has helped me lots...)

Which in turn links to one of Steven Stahlbergs threads. And I do have to say that "the whole loop thing" is a good idea to get your head around. It's the most efficient way to have a model ready for animation, not to mention that it will be a lot easier to tweak and give new expressions.

You really really really shouldn't take what your teacher says as law. I've worked as a substitute teacher, teaching modeling, and not all teachers know what they talk about, sometimes they... forget... to mention certain tools and/or techniques that are invaluable. Teachers are humans too, they aren't perfect. You should listen to the people here.

I mean, if 85-90% of all modelers swear by edgeloops, doesn't that mean something to you?

[tsuru]

It seems to me, through his past use of terminology, he's equating box modeling with 'edge looping.' Which is simply not true. Edge looping or just being able to /see/ edge loops is more of a way to sight and understand /good topology/. It can be done through any kind of modeling technique be it box, patch, or spline modeling (and probably any that I left off).

Saying looping is not your cup of tea is like saying You don't care about good topology. Usually the people who would even think of saying this in the 3D world are those people who are generating meshes through some kind of automated program where the end static model is the only concern.

For a /sculptor/ in 3D to say this is almost like a traditional sculptor saying "I'm gonna chisel a statue out of this marble here by strapping the hammer and chisel to each of my elbows because using my hands just isn't my cup of tea" Meaning the sculptor will be spending more time working with how he's handling his tools than spending time chiseling.

[philnolan3d]

Okay okay, totally getting off of the looping topic. Is there anything that you people DO like about it. Or is it really just worst thing you've ever seen?

[Hatey]

its not bad, but it really needs a lot of work. The other's suggestion on dealing with a model with more classical proportions is a subtle hint to pay attention more to anatomy.

'looping' follows this line of reasoning (at least how I understand it). If you set up your face mesh where you have all your polygon's edges perfectly laterally and longitudal (imagine a globe) then when it comes time to animate you will have a lot of problems. - when people smile a crease forms in between their cheek and mouth which travels up to the base of the nose, and trying to animate a mesh without the looping is extremely difficult. If you just make a cut into that global mesh where the creases should form you can really mess up the meshsmooth with all the triangles.

Alternatively, if you create your mesh by using polygons that naturally form those types of creases then you can keep your mesh simple and a lot easier to animate. A common phrase in modeling is "always model for animation"

Ideally, with practice I'm sure you could come up with a workflow that you can use to create almost any face using the same techniques and just different adjustments.

I hope I explained that intelligently.

The only thing i'll say about your model is to look at the mesh (with subD turned OFF) and make sure that everything follows a natural curve with no divits or creasing. Its very obvious around the jaw area with subD turned on, it looks wavey and unnatural, if you fix the cage then it'll be smooth and look a lot better when you have it on. Two things I can say is : model with your characters completely relaxed, i.e. no muscular contraction in the face. Achieve that when you've rigged them. and second. unless you are modeling older people most people dont have any creasing in their face at all (except a little with their eye lids, or overweight people, but even then its not on their face).

Blah, i'm typing way too mcuh, Feels like im rambling.
peace

[philnolan3d]

Actually that's a lot of how I work is going back to poly mode and looking at it from all angles and fixing any points that don't form a smooth curve (or as smooth as possible with polys).

Admittedly the body still needs some work, but here's the latest:
http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/real_girl_WIP_04.jpg http://www.philnolan3d.com/images/artwork/real_girl_body_WIP_02.jpg

[Spady]

I would suggest you to use a tighter field of view when modeling. When we are looking a someone's face from 1 meter , the effective fov is something around 5° (almost orthographic). This will help you (and us) evaluate your model better.
Otherwise the topology for the face isn't that bad, now it's just a matter of vertices tweaking.

[philnolan3d]

Um.. I don't know that Lightwave has a way to change the field of view in modeler, I mean I can zoom in and out, but I don't think there's a way of knowing how many degrees the fov is... Normally I do all of my modeling in the top/back/right windows, which are orthographic. I usually just use the perspective view for looking at it and for selecting hard to reach points/polys. If there is a way to do it, please tell me I've been trying to figure it out for some time.

[wgreenlee1]

Theres a slider ...I think in the view options for Modeler where you can adjust the perspective camera.

Set it to zero.

I forget but I think you hit "d" to get to it and its a slider.

[Spady]

It's the Perspective Amount slider in the Display Options / Layout Tab. Just set it on full left and you'll be fine.

[philnolan3d]

Okay done, thanks. Funny, I had asked people about that before and no-one seemed to know.

[allenatl]

Go to Display>View Options. In the Display Options panel, use the Perspective slider to adjust from wide-angle view to nearly flat view. Whoops. Too late. Never mind.

[xenxen]

Just a note to clarify about "industry professionals". I've gone through quite a few programs for self interest and I've talked with many students who have graduated from accalimed schools and programs dealing with 3D etc. And the general consensus is that the majority of their instructors were little more than flashy amatuers compared to their counterparts who were in the industry working as professionals. In many cases students going into these courses knew more than their instructors, which is really sad. So with out intentional insult here willohmsford, I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of some of these trusted and proven techniques. I wouldn't even be surprised if you were warned against them. Sometimes years of instruction doesn't count for very much in the face of reality. Seriously take the time to really listen to some of the suggestions here. They are good ones and worth understanding.

[philnolan3d]

I know what you mean about a lot of teachers, but this is definatly not one of those schools. In fact the whole school was started because Jeff Scheetz was working for Foundation Imaging hiring people. He says he never found one school that consistantly had good artists come out of it, so when he left Foundation he decided to start one of his own. You can see a little about each of the teachers if you go to www.daveschool.com and click "Staff"

[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.