/3/ - 3DCG

[Anonymous No.726725]

https://www.zbrushcentral.com/t/grace-kelly/360916
Modeled in ZBrush, rendered in Maya with Arnold. The only flaws I see are:
--Right lower eyelid doubles a wrinkle that should be much less prominent in the lower secondary wrinkle, skin is too opaque (usually compensated for in the diffuse texture)
--Left cheek texture looks like she slept on canvas; too regular and would have been smoothed over with foundation
--Excessive hair at jawline and it looks like it was generated as male stubble instead of the finer, female vellus hair. Women used depilatory cream for this in the 1950s, especially movie stars.
Head hair is amazing. Thoughts, /3/?

[Anonymous No.726726]

Looks ultra fake t b h. The skin and the cloth especially.

[Anonymous No.726727]

>>726725
the hair is incredible.
ironic how the cloth is the least realistic looking thing in the image.

[Anonymous No.726728]

>>726727
>>726726
They half-assed the fabric knowing everyone was looking at the face and hair, yeah.
Is this what they used to do the hair? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkFu7tHmbg

[Anonymous No.726729]

>>726725
Hair is amazing, skin is a little off (especially evident on the cheek where the scale of the normal map is too big making it looks like scales), face fluff is too uniform, they clearly didn't even bother with the cloth.

They've also gone overboard with the subdermals to the point that she looks like she's got a black eye.

[Anonymous No.726733]

>>726729
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/0XdnvV
Why would you post the underexposed version, that's like the cardinal sin of rendering. Also, why does she look 99% realistic but he's an extra from The Last of Us?

[Anonymous No.726735]

>>726733
I'm being an asshole about it but there's something incorrect about the lighting being this crisp with shadows that sharp at lowered intensity, isn't there?

[Anonymous No.726737]

>>726733
>Why would you post the underexposed version
It was a random old screengrab, had no idea there was a better render lying around. Neat.

[Anonymous No.726746]

>>726737
Yeah, but I didn't watch the episode to understand the context, either so I'm the dumbass here.

[Anonymous No.726749]

>>726728
Hadi does his hair in xgen. There's a timelapse of him doing Drake's hair on YouTube (I think it's on his own channel)

He has better renders than this imo and he works quite quickly from look at his output.

Ian Spriggs is (significantly) better though imo.

[Anonymous No.726750]

looks fake as fuck

[Anonymous No.726758]

>>726749
I saw this one the other day, it's brilliant.

[Anonymous No.726762]

Skin is off
Clothes look fake and thin
Long hair on jawline?
Uneven eyes/wrinkles
Weird shadows

I do like the hair though, that's very nice

[Anonymous No.726764]

>>726725
You come on a dead board on 4chan to critique someone? What are you a fucking schizo?

[Anonymous No.726765]

>>726764
Are you really this autistic?

[Anonymous No.726766]

>>726746
The whole series is absolutely worth a watch, it runs the full gamut of art styles and there is some incredible work in there.

[Anonymous No.726770]

>>726766
Well I just watched the episode this came from. Suzy objecting loudly makes no sense in the context of the episode but it was otherwise fine.

[Anonymous No.726774]

>>726727
yeah, incredibly parallel strands are the nice touch

[Anonymous No.726793]

>>726774
You're being sarcastic, are you? That detail about the hair jumped at me, it doesn't look right. Shading is great, though.

[Anonymous No.726953]

>>726733
>why does she look 99% realistic
>Why would you post the underexposed version
I like when I don't have to type anything to answer.

[Anonymous No.726960]

>>726953
No, I was a complete retard for posting about these without watching the show first, I admit that.

[Anonymous No.727115]

Looking at the absolute garbage that gets posted in the WIP threads and then seeing everyone shit on these kinds of models is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.727138]

>>726749
>Ian Spriggs
absolutely love him. he's really progressed with nailing down a photorealistic look over the past few years (picrel, left is 2014, right is 2020)
he uses Mudbox, Maya and v-ray iirc, in fact i recall him saying that he just used the stock skin shader.

it's 100% down to the artist's skill in both technique and observation, not software. I recall him saying that he takes hundreds of photographic reference with everything hand sculpted in Mudbox and textured in Photoshop. this takes quite a bit longer than scans though, so it's obvious why this approach is not used in production

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2fl02gfhxM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gr3SRkrbqU

(i kinda have a soft spot for those earlier less realistic portraits though)

[Anonymous No.727139]

>>727138
Here's a breakdown of that 2020 portrait.

[Anonymous No.727140]

>>727139
An interview he did late last year, there's plenty more available online (incl a talk on youtube). I used the term "photorealism", but there's more meaning in his work than just simple reproduction of reality. He talks a little about that in this interview, if you're interested in the conceptual side of what he's doing.

https://beforesandafters.com/2019/07/15/inside-the-mind-of-hyperreal-portrait-artist-ian-spriggs/

[Anonymous No.727166]

>>726737
why vlc over mpv?

[Anonymous No.727512]

>>726725
for me its the shirt she has on. doesnt look good enough.

Hair is perfect.

Skin color could be a little more darker towards the chest.

[Anonymous No.727580]

>>727512
>Skin color could be a little more darker towards the chest.
The house the artist gets his textures from only does heads. It's very stupid.

[Anonymous No.727591]

>>726725
I think the peach fuzz is a bit too prominent