 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris B nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/08 11:03:
> "Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
> news:1367o3p8v2610pklir4k14rkpr8pt9keb3@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:53:58 +0100, "M_a_r_c"
>> <jac### [at] wanadoo fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Girl rendered
>> Are you sure? look at her hair just above her bust. And the wrinkles on
>> the
>> tunic fastening.
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>
> ... And the top part of the head looks real to me, along with the stitching
> on the tunic.
> As Nemesis mentioned, the face looks a little smooth, but some touching up
> in photoshop could make a photo look like that.
Or the model is Chinese or from another Asian country. They look prety ageless
and very smooth faced at any age under 50.
>
> The various repititions down the top half of the right hand side are
> strange. They don't look like a straight photoshop cut and paste, but it
> doesn't really look to me like a modelled repeat either. Maybe a cut, paste
> and some sophisticated merge in photoshop.
>
> Following Warp's style of logic, I'm assuming it can't be all a photo,
> otherwise the post would have started with 'Off-topic'. :-)
>
> My guess would be the face and the hair on either side of the face are
> rendered, the rest is a photo (with some photoshop cleaning done top right).
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.
>
>
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
SHOPPING MATH
A man will pay $20 for a $10 item he needs.
A woman will pay $10 for a $20 item that she doesn't need.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:47841033$1@news.povray.org...
> Chris B nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/08 11:03:
>> As Nemesis mentioned, the face looks a little smooth, but some touching
>> up in photoshop could make a photo look like that.
> Or the model is Chinese or from another Asian country. They look prety
> ageless and very smooth faced at any age under 50.
>
Hmm. I meant more from a photo vs. rendering point of view rather than as a
comment about her complexion :-). Scanned images and digital photos tend to
introduce pixel-level variations which are visible in this image if you zoom
into other seemingly smooth regions. They're absent when you zoom into the
cheeks on this lady's face. Instead you get contours of uniformly graded
areas, which leads me to think that this is more likely to be a rendered
part of the image.
Or am I cheating :-)
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Grass photographed
>>
>> No, there are model repeats in the grass - top right corner.
>
> It could also be sloppy image manipulation of a photo.
Yeah, clone brush... therefore real image, but retouched.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very very well done assuming it's here for a reason... (i.e. not all
photo). I'm putting my guess as: Mesh girl all the way. (Hair and
clothing wrinkles and fabric textures all seem to be getting better in
things like Poser right?) Eye whites often seem to stand out in
renderings, but here don't so much. Grass photo. The thing which would
almost have me say rendered grass is the extra darkness in the upper
left corner. But as Steve pointed out, there are some repeats in the
upper right which would suggest 2d manipulation, i.e. avoidable if
rendered.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"EagleSun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Vector or real?
>
> (or mix?)
Face, mesh. Either that, or Botox + too much foundation.
Everything else (hair, outfit, grass) photographed. These all have a
sophistication that i haven't yet seen in CG models.
- Hair: irregularities in the part and at the edges.
- Outfit: the quality of the wrinkles in the sleeves.
- Grass: joints in the stems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I cast my vote for 100% rendered. The wrinkles in her clothes are fantastic, I
don't deny it --- maybe a bit too narrow for the type of fabric? The kicker is
that no photo shoot would have a woman sit so stiffly. Realistic posture and
gesture is, in my opinion, one of the hardest things to accomplish in a
rendered person. Traditional animators have access to stretch and squish to
make up for the lack of life --- those seeking realism loose that.
Same with the hair --- it's wavy. There's no reason to make it wavy except to
show individual hairs. A woman with such physical perfection would take care of
her hair.
Her face, as everyone has said, is certainly not real --- rendered or not, it's
a fake ;)
The grass gave me the most uncertainty. I finally decided I didn't like the way
it lay against itself. It might be real, but if everything else is rendered,
why bother?
Do we ever find out the truth?
--
S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'll say ugly. Actually, it's just the eyebrow that is - why people (ie
women) do that, I cannot say. Otherwise, too much photoshop.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alright, EagleSun, better come out and tell us the answer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] tektonartcom> wrote:
> Alright, EagleSun, better come out and tell us the answer.
oh, he did!
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.4787daa558562751ee33c1d0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] tektonartcom> wrote:
> Alright, EagleSun, better come out and tell us the answer.
Hi Kirk!
I did.. in a separate post.. look for "Vector Results".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
