 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Random Pete" <pet### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> > I'm also at a loss on the "whites" of the eyes. They either look glowing or
> > plastic when I fiddle with the texture.
>
> Try a semi-transparent surface (try a crackle pigment with a thin red band
> at 0.0-0.05 or so in the colour map for the effect of blood vessels) with
> some scattering media inside. Plus slight reflection & highlights to give
> the impression of wetness.
>
> For a realistic iris you'll want to layer some radial and spherical textures
> with varying amounts of turbulence. Here's a good close up of an eye I
> found: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/journalspace/eye.jpg
>
> I was trying to make a convincing looking eye recently (albeit one belonging
> to a being from another dimension, however I was basing it on a human eye
> just with very different colours). The iris was the particularly tricky
> part. I didn't finish working on it since it didn't end up fitting into the
> scene particularly well, but I'd like to use it elsewhere...
>
> Pete
Thanks for the picture. It looks like it will be pretty complicated if I
make it a procedural texture, but here goes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.4523e9d2e4de19fdda53d9e40@news.povray.org...
>
> Yeah, other people have said that too. It looks a little strange to me
> too.
> The thing is, when I modelled it I made sure to follow that guideline (it
> was drilled into me in art class :))- here is a side view to show that the
> eyes really are about halfway between the chin and the top of the head.
> Perhaps I have the highest point too far back? Perhaps it's camera angle?
> What do you think?
>
Ah! Yes, indeed! It probably was the camera position/tilt that gave the
impression. From the side, it looks perfectly well-balanced.
Well done! I never achieved that kind of detail (but then I didn't try
enough probably)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote in message
news:web.4523e9d2e4de19fdda53d9e40@news.povray.org...
> here is a side view to show that the
> eyes really are about halfway between the chin and the top of the head.
> Perhaps I have the highest point too far back? Perhaps it's camera angle?
> What do you think?
>
Hi,
I would argue that the skull goes back too far. I would say that the
distance from the front of the forehead to the back of the skull is about
10% too long. This indeed places the highest point of the skull too far
back, which makes it look too low when the camera is close in.
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> schreef in bericht
news:4524f5d3$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I would argue that the skull goes back too far. I would say that the
> distance from the front of the forehead to the back of the skull is about
> 10% too long. This indeed places the highest point of the skull too far
> back, which makes it look too low when the camera is close in.
>
I agree.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote:
> "Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote in message
> news:web.4523e9d2e4de19fdda53d9e40@news.povray.org...
> > here is a side view to show that the
> > eyes really are about halfway between the chin and the top of the head.
> > Perhaps I have the highest point too far back? Perhaps it's camera angle?
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I would argue that the skull goes back too far. I would say that the
> distance from the front of the forehead to the back of the skull is about
> 10% too long. This indeed places the highest point of the skull too far
> back, which makes it look too low when the camera is close in.
>
In some cultures it is regarded as a sign of beauty. Not in Europe I may
add.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks to everyone who responded. Thomas, Chris B--I'm going to take a look
at some references, and I will probably end up shortening the skull (if it
seems outside some ordinary range). As for the eyes, I have been working on
them, and I think they are better. I wonder, though- compared to the
reference photos, the highlights on the iris are still wrong. Even using
the "exponent" keywork, I can't get the bright parts of the reflection to
stay bright while the dim ones disappear. It makes the model look like he's
got little mirror-shades on his lenses (see attached). Ideas?
-Stefan S
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'headtest004.png' (45 KB)
Preview of image 'headtest004.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote:
> Yeah, other people have said that too. It looks a little strange to me too.
> The thing is, when I modelled it I made sure to follow that guideline (it
> was drilled into me in art class :))- here is a side view to show that the
> eyes really are about halfway between the chin and the top of the head.
> Perhaps I have the highest point too far back? Perhaps it's camera angle?
> What do you think?
Looking at the profile, the occiput (the lower rear part of the head) looks
too high up on the neck. The back of the cranium looks constricted
top-to-bottom. I've never seen any art instruction mention the back of the
head, though.
Skull: http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus188.html
Caveats on the illustration:
1. The skull appears to be tilted back somewhat, so measuring proportions
may be misleading. I just included it to compare the back of the cranium
with the rest of the skull.
2. This is almost certainly a white European male, which your model
obviously is not. This same illustration appears in a more ancient edition
of Gray's _Anatomy_, one which refers to African skulls as "degraded."
Presumably, Dr. Gray would illustrate using a skull with presumably
"normal" phrenology. (This is not to put down Dr. Gray; in his time,
science had yet to discover that race is imaginary.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote:
> ... It makes the model look like he's
> got little mirror-shades on his lenses (see attached). Ideas?
"He"? I got the impression that it was a she.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> "He"? I got the impression that it was a she.
Male humans have a ridge under the eyebrow that females lack, for one
thing. (One of several minor differences.) That's probably what you're
noticing, given there's no throat and no hair (particularly eyebrow
hair). It's surprisingly easy to distinguish a male skull from a female
skull. It's why you can tell the gender of lots of cartoon characters.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> "Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote:
> > ... It makes the model look like he's
> > got little mirror-shades on his lenses (see attached). Ideas?
>
> "He"? I got the impression that it was a she.
The confusion is certainly understandable:
Actually I did start out modelling from a female reference, but after a lot
of fiddling it looked more male than female to me. (Bias of the modeler's
sex?) I guess I need to define the features one way or the other, eh? I'll
take Darren's input to heart...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
