A new supply on the marketplace: http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=56917

.... and the judgement from a user: http://www.3d-erotic-studio.de.vu/Faceshop-Web.pdf

FaceShop Pro and Poser 7.

And I did not spend a lot of time doing this one.

[Edit: image deleted by moderator.]

Quote - > Quote - A new supply on the marketplace: http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=56917

.... and the judgement from a user: http://www.3d-erotic-studio.de.vu/Faceshop-Web.pdf

 

FaceShop Pro and Poser 7.

And I did not spend a lot of time doing this one.

Here is the reference image I used in FSPro

Nevertheless, they do not want to state seriously:

1. the Poser result would have resemblance to the original
2. the Poser result is enough for the most minimum quality

Every Head texture with photoshop leads to better results - without spending 80 dollars on it.

I nearly bought this when it first came out at DAZ and was on sale at I think 50% off at the time, before I did I looked through the forums there and to say it got a bad press is an understatement, it was ripped apart by quite a few peeps and so I never purchased it.

I didn't buy it and still haven't, whether it's any good I couldn't say, some peeps [like above] seem to have had good use out of it, I've seen a very good likeness of Avril Lavigne from it, which is almost enough for me to get it but not quite!!  [LOL].

So a mutilated and skew nose has Daniel Craig now really not - like on the Poser result.
In addition, he has blue and no brown eyes.

Now the result is not convincing completely absolutely.

Quote - So a mutilated and skew nose has Daniel Craig now really not - like on the Poser result.
In addition, he has blue and no brown eyes.

Now the result is not convincing completely absolutely.

****To see very nice results, please visit the FaceShop Celebrity Contest Gallery at ****http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/contests/public_vote/-/?id=21

You can even vote for your favorite art piece.
Another thing - pls. don't listen to people who put down a program without EVEN trying it.
Laslo

I think. the negative reports in the DAZ-forum about this program, are an answer enough.

Nevertheless, there it does not suffice to show a few examples, it does not arise from those which expenditure has been pursued there by Postwork afterwards.

I've noted that the version which is being sold now is SR1.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2700211

I haven't checked the threads over at DAZ yet -- but perhaps they've fixed some things.  If this program does what it's supposed to do: then I'd consider it a very worthwhile investment.

I've only dabbled with it, but I REALLY like it. No, it's not going to take your magazine cover scan of Angelina Jolie and make an exact replica. However, if you really expect that for less than $1000, much less $100, you're probably setting yourself up for disappoinment.

I just took a look at what Laslo posted for the contest page, and there aren't many renders I would consider true likenesses, but still. No matter what, you're getting a virtually infinite number of face morphs for each of your figures. To me, that alone is worth the price. Add in that it also gives you the texture for those morphs, and it's a winner IMO.

To each his/her own though, I guess.

I want advise such as what possition of curves reduces lumps, what view of face gives best results etc.

Do John Wayne :)

geoegres:
One can outbid this comment in stupidity probably no more

The program works fine, in my experience, but I mainly care about the face morph capability. Anyone expecting a low-resolution photo of a celebrity to serve as a high quality texture for his or her Poser renders isn’t being realistic. However, the automatic texture generation might serve as a start for building a better texture in PhotoShop.

I have no idea what you said Web-Hunter
But thats ok

If it can't do the Duke then it is useless!

Paloth, can you give advise? I have checked forums and totally RTFM as well as the tutorial which I like but are ther tips you can give? I get some bumps at top of the head, some seam down center of the face, some lumps on jaw line... these things keep me dialed no greater than maybe 0.4 and I would like to go higher with the setting. What things am I doing wrong with my points and curves? Too many nodes on curves or too few? Bad placement on the head? I am trying to use same number of nodes relative same landmarks on each side of face.

I have found that fixing the background to match skin and hair and doging and burning the face to even out the shadows and highlights from one side of the face to the other before going into FaceShop is good so long as it does not obscure the face landmarks. The resulting map can be mixed with a resource head map.  I have found it better to export the orginal "target head" and group the lips to the face in Uvmapper Classic as the geometry to go into FaceShopPro.

Thanks.

Maybe he thought you were telling him to have intmate congress with the corpse of John Wayne?

lol- maybe

The morphs are far too subtle, and in most cases it's hard to tell if the mesh has been changed at all. The textures could possibly be a good starting point, but will still require a great deal of fixing and detailing in Photoshop before being truly useful.

If you're using Apollo or V4, you'll get more out of dial spinning than you could ever get out of this application. I don't have enough experience with other characters to comment.

I took a gander at the examples in the Daz contest and was underwhelmed in the majority. There are a small number of quite decent portraits, but they've clearly spent more than a little time in Photoshop.

It comes down to a question of quality. What sacrifices are you willing to make for convenience?

Texture only                    :                       Texture and Morph                 :                      Morph only

...but this was my 1st test.... I like the test on V3RR more.

Clawshrimp, I wonder what you are doing differently from me... the morphs I get are far too extreme, not subtle at all, above they are dialed no more than .40 and once I get above .60 the face explodes into a hugely exagerated characture and starts to tear. Is it a difference in the placement of guide lines?  I thought my first three tries above were pretty good and I didn't photoshop the textures or the renders. I agree that the Daz contest is hugely disapointing. Since I don't know who celebrities are I got this to just try to get my characters to look less like thier base meshes. It is tbecause of the extreme quality of the morph that I think they can only be used for low-res renders where the face is no bigger then the renders above.

"I get some bumps at top of the head." You need to actually trace the top of the skull. Continue the curves from each side of the head until they join at the top--or put a wig on the mutant. The seams might be texure related. Try putting the old texure on the figure and see how it looks. You can edit texures in a Photo editing application. The lumps on the jaw probably resulted from your placement of the curve. You might try again or use a photo from another angle. I've botched some attempts but produce usable results more than half the time (when I have the time.) FaceShop allows you to make more than one morph for your characters. You can combine frontal and side view morph for a better likeness. At the very least, FaceShop allows you to make facial morphs for the majority of characters that don't work in Poser's face room.

Paloth, thanks. I had not been taking those side curves up high at all. The seam problem is in the morph created not the texture... I can't figure out if it is something to do with how the curves from each side meet. I also have not figured out if few or many nodes on the curves are best. Where are you find head shots if I may ask?

Quote - Paloth, thanks. I had not been taking those side curves up high at all. The seam problem is in the morph created not the texture... I can't figure out if it is something to do with how the curves from each side meet. I also have not figured out if few or many nodes on the curves are best. Where are you find head shots if I may ask?

I am planning to release a watch me video momentarily that shows a step by step approach. Also, if you read the enclosed Tutorial by Gojugirl, you get a fair idea.
As far as finding pictures (for example Angeline Jolie), for practice you can just use Google/Images and ask for large images only.

Laslo

Thanks. I liked the Gojugirl tutorial very much. I have finally replicated the "weak" morphs people were complaining of by using a full frontal source.... I had only been using three-quarter views which were giving "strong" morphs. I have not tried profile yet. right now I am still playing at giving P4 Nude Man the M3 face shape.

The texture IS a good starting point, but you need a lot of patience to come up with something semi-realistic.

I admit -- I bought FaceShop for the texture-making gist. I don't use the motphs, as I have the basic software and I don't like using the DAZ studio.

So, I used the texture done in the FaceShop as the base for a character. The proof in my gallery, under the link.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1457588

Guys,
**An important note about copyright.
**I need to make you all aware of something regarding using celebrity photos with this program.

Unless you own the rights to a photo, you should not be using it in the galleries as part of your final rendered texture.

It is the same basic principle as using any element for which you don't have permission.

Please bear this in mind when considering posting images to the gallery.

Thanks

Karen

Posts to the forum should fall under Fair Use for educational and journalistic purposes I suppose. Then there is the whole matter of Fan Art and "transformative nature".  Then there is the issue of likness and ones status as a public figure, Angela Joli has for instance decided to be a public figure in addition to a celebrity, she has probly lost claim to "celebrity" just as Arnold Schwartzenager has been adjudicated to have lost his. These things wouldn't play out in court if they were as clear cut as some people suppose... protection of copyright is something that must be defended, it is not a defacto divine endowment... the first admentmendt plays a big role in the issue. Maybe the RMP simply has a policy that does not pertain to the legaity involved.  Lord... Picasso and Andy Worhol, Paul Gaugain who painted from commercial post cards, maybe a quarter or more of art history would be missing if Microsoft had been trampling artistic rights and common sense a hundred or so years earlier.

Wikipedia:

The first factor is about whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of, say, personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 Prev | Next 

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

*Congress favored nonprofit educational uses over commercial uses. Copies used in education, but made or sold at a monetary profit, may not be favored. Courts also favor uses that are "transformative," or that are not mere reproductions. Fair use is more likely when the copyrighted work is "transformed" into something new or of new utility, such as quotations incorporated into a paper, and perhaps pieces of a work mixed into a multimedia product for your own teaching needs or included in commentary or criticism of the original.

http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/highered.htm,* The Copyright Management Center (CMC), Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

N.B. It is permisible to exerpt texts for educational, critical and journalist purposes... unless these forums are truly commercial rather than educational I suppose there should't be a problem.

Hi momodot,

We're not speaking about the issue of a celebrity. That would fall under right of publicity, not copyright. In fact there is a thread about that already ongoing:
http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2699801

The issue, as I stated, regards the use of someone else's photo as a texture.

To make it clear: it doesn't matter whether the photo is of J-Lo or just some random person. If you didn't take the photo yourself, or acquire the rights to use it, then you cannot use it in images uploaded here.

Karen

"Transformative Use"

Whatever.

Sorry to be techy about it. I just don't know where art history would be today if this start a centry or two earlier. Where do ynou draw the line... did you get permission from the designer of your sweater to use it in your avatar? Did you cut your own hair or does the design belong to someone else? A lot of the stuff in the RMP store uses textures sampled off other peoples material such as building exteriors, other stuff relies on replicating designs by real world designers for things such as cars or shoes. That is commercial stuff and copyright is mainly an issue of commerce, that is why there are provisions for fair use... protection is extended somewhat analagously to patents, to provide exclusive commercial within strict terms... not to education and art.

So we can't use FaceShop for the use it was intended, if we want to upload the image here?

Well that just sucks...

(I'm not taking this out on you karen, I don't kill the messenger.)

Hi Momodot,

That is commercial stuff and copyright is mainly an issue of commerce, that is why there are provisions for fair use... protection is extended somewhat analagously to patents, to provide exclusive commercial within strict terms... not to education and art.

I'm afraid that is incorrect (although it may be how you would wish to see things.) You may find it of use to visit the Copyright forum.

Hi destro75,

We do not have any issues with you posting morphed models, but you must have the rights to use any photos/textures which you use in making your render.

Remember momodot- guilty before proven around here.

Geoegress,
DIMWIT !!!!!!!

lol- I love personal attacks.

We've gone form "I have but one life to give for my country" to "dimwit". Maby we DO have an eductional crisis 

Dear mods- please do not delete the offending comments or mine either. Let this troll's comments speak for itself.
Thank you
geo.

Quote - Hi Momodot,

That is commercial stuff and copyright is mainly an issue of commerce, that is why there are provisions for fair use... protection is extended somewhat analagously to patents, to provide exclusive commercial within strict terms... not to education and art.

I'm afraid that is incorrect (although it may be how you would wish to see things.) You may find it of use to visit the Copyright forum.

Hi destro75,

We do not have any issues with you posting morphed models, but you must have the rights to use any photos/textures which you use in making your render.

Guys (and Gals),

I am not a lawyer. But, should Policei raid all the painters on art faires where you find soulful drawings of Jimi Hendrix or Elvis, or, God forbid, a velvet protrait of G.W.
In other words, can you paint an image of a know figure? If you can, it is an interpretive expression. 
Any law porfessors out ther to confirm?
Laslo

Hi Laslo,

Once again... the issue is not about celebrity likeness, it's about using photos which you don't own.

Karen

Geoegress: Not that I agree with him, but I think Web Hunter's problem is with your signature, not your comments.

Otherwise: Why any artist would be surprised that the corporate hogs would have "protected" reproductions of photographs is beyond me. Keep in mind that if you "use" a photo in FaceShop you are not using the actual photo, you are using a reproduction of the photo in a medium that is fundamentally different than the original (analog photo, digital repro). In other words, your repro is as much an original as the protected photo. Yours is a capture of the photo, the photo is a capture of some scene. This is copyright gone rabid, and it needs to be put down, just like a rabid dog.

To answer the obviously frivolous questions above, yes, once the corporate lawyers get to it, you will need to pay a royalty to the corporate gluttons running the Indonesian sweatshops where the sweater was made if you want to photograph someone wearing it. After all, the human is just a person. The sweater is anti-intellectual property. Its instance may be longer to the "person," but its eternally marketable essense belongs to the corporation (not, please note, to the other, ancillary human who designed it, unless he had the wisdom to incorporate and has better lawyers than Monsanto). Welcome to the world of modern art.

But hey, it's R'osity's ball, and their bat, and their bases, and their chalk, and their field. And their buy-in to the greedy corporatization of art. So live with it.

M

Yes, logically!!
With the comments everybody can express his opinion, even here.
The silly, provoke signature annoys me.

I don't quite get this. The texture is "bad" but the morph is "good"? Yet Faceshop "looks" at the photo to make both. And the texture is NOT the same photograph, otherwise I'd have no original left after using it. To me this is the same as looking at a picture then painting as close to it as I can -- which may or may not be an exact likeness, depending on my vision, skill & style.  All FaceShop does is make the process faster and a bit easier. Since when has painting what you see become a violation/infringement/crime?

Quote - Hi Laslo,

Once again... the issue is not about celebrity likeness, it's about using photos which you don't own.

Karen

Uh oh Karen...guess you better back track through this thread and delete the photos used for examples. No point in harping about a rule if you're not going to enforce it...that pretty much defeats the point of having a rule. :tt2:

Showing an image at a different size, and resolution to show how this soft-ware works DOES constitute "Fair-Use" under copyright law.

Hi Byrdie,

And the texture is NOT the same photograph, otherwise I'd have no original left after using it.

It doesn't work that way with digital products. I can make 15000 copies of my avatar and email them to every active Poser forum member, but I'll still have the original on my hard drive :-)

Tainted Heart, thanks for the reminder. Mariner, please post a link to the reference pic you used instead of a copy. Thanks

Hi.
This software was posted in the 3ds max forum as a mesh creation program for max. The post was moved or deleted; So I tracked this thread down.
I see that the software doesn't make meshes, it makes morphs for Poser figures. Which might even be more convenient since the Poser meshes are already rigged.

Has anybody tried using their own hi-res digital photgraph(s) with the application?
I didn't see any posts anywhere that showed attempts at trying this. It was what I had in mind when seeing the original post at the Max forum. I would be interested in seeing the results of that. Even if it isn't a perfect likeness; the alternative is a massive poly count mesh that can only be made with very expensive hardware that I have no access to.

EDIT - Oh, another question; is there some issue with the file exporting?
I saw some posts that sort of implied that.

Quote -

It doesn't work that way with digital products. I can make 15000 copies of my avatar and email them to every active Poser forum member, but I'll still have the original on my hard drive :-)

:headscratch: This thing duplicates the photo? I haven't seen it do that. I mean, whenever I want to make copies of my avatar or whatever & share 'em around, I know I'm doing it.  Yes, I'm aware that with digital files, I can clone a gazillion or more to distribute while the original stays on my hard-drive.  I thought FaceShop "looked" at the photograph and "painted" what it "saw" onto a texture template.  You say it doesn't. Guess one of us is mistaken then. Can somebody sort this out? Damnit Jim, I'm an artist, not a programmer ... or a copyright/trademark/IP expert. :-)

Well, the issue of using celeb picts is moot. Can't find any that don't feature big open mouth smiles. Gotta ask the authors of the prog if open mouth poses can be dealt with in the next version using inner lip curves. Meanwhile I will try it with custom curves and also try operating on mesh exported in a smile pose. I have not yet checked to see what happens to the teeth in FaceShop but from casual posing it seems not be a problem.

It is considered "fair use" to substanitally modify an existing image in the creation of a new image for a noncomerical project such as a Poser render.

It is considered "fair use" to substanitally modify an existing image in the creation of a new image for a noncomerical project such as a Poser render.

You might consider it fair use. A court may not.
Remember that Fair Use is a defense to be used in court. Not some kind of protective law.

I thought FaceShop "looked" at the photograph and "painted" what it "saw" onto a texture template.*

Every computer program that displays images does this.
When you view a gallery image here, your browser received the information from Renderosity and "paints" the image onto your screen.
When you open an image in Photoshop (or PSP or whatever) and copy the image into a new image, Photoshop "paints" what it "sees" into a new image.
Photocopiers also do this...
So do printers.
Hmm. So does your TV set.

In the light of the above -- the usage of a photo in a wallpaper is a copyright violation?

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with such a point of view. If I don't wish a photo of mine to be used by a third party, i state so in a copyright notice. So far, none of the celebrities' pictures I've come upon in the midst of the Net had such a copyright notice anywhere near them.

IF I 'm not making money out of my work (wallpaper, collage, texture for a personal figure) I consider such usage to be a tribute to the celebrity rather than a copyright violation.

Having said that -- it appears that we can buy the FaceShop software, yet we cannot post picture we've produced with it, uless they show our own faces (in which case no othe rperosn can determine the actual likeness of the figure and the human being).

Should than Renderosity even sell the product?

Well, of course, 50% of the sales can change one's mind.

Should then the picture of Natalie Portman be on the cover of the FaceShop?

Should Arnold be used as an example?

The Leonardo's artwork should not also be used as an example. Let be strict and consequent in actions TO THE LETTER.

Don't forget about removing ALL the examples of the FaceShop usage from the Forums.

Changing the gallery suddenly became a very good option.

Good bye and good night.

In the light of the above -- the usage of a photo in a wallpaper is a copyright violation?

Yes, absolutely, unless you own the rights to the photo.