Looks good, Olaf.
Man, this thread has had nearly 105,000 reads and almost 5,000 replies since it started. I wonder how that places with some of the other big threads in RO history?

Quote -
Man, this thread has had nearly 105,000 reads and almost 5,000 replies since it started. I wonder how that places with some of the other big threads in RO history?

Dear me! I've created a monster.

**I like the brows. Before and after. I just have this thing about arches in the brow. And yes, placing realistic brows on a model is very difficult. I know I've spent hours getting them matched and placed myself.

You didn't create a monster. You generated interest. Something that's been lacking in me lately. So I thank you.
**

 Frankenstein was created by Mary Shelly over a hundred years ago and is still going strong.

Creating monsters isn't a bad thing.:laugh:

Creating something that brings people of similiar interest together is NEVER a bad thing.  You came up with something interesting and worthwhile.  Then you tossed it out where EVERYONE could throw in their comments and talents to make something that might well be more than the sum of it's parts AND be better than more than the sum of the talents involved.

All involved are learning TONs of stuff and having a blast working on it.

Antonia isn't as big as Godzilla. Yet.  I think she can kick the crap out of Ghidra, though.:lol:

odf,

Yes, the one on the right removes the sadness, and looks more neutral. But If SaintFox changes the texture, I am definitely going to keep the original as well, because I like the sad look.

Still working on it. Thanks for being patient.

bagginsbill,

Yes the iris/sclera boundary looks perfect.

Quote -  Frankenstein was created by Mary Shelly over a hundred years ago and is still going strong.

Almost 200 years now. Man, time flies! :laugh:

Many say that at the same time she also created modern Science Fiction. Definitely out of my league, that woman.

Quote - odf,

Yes, the one on the right removes the sadness, and looks more neutral. But If SaintFox changes the texture, I am definitely going to keep the original as well, because I like the sad look.

You can do that. But hopefully, that sad look would easily be recreated via morphs.

Quote - I'm pretty happy with the iris rim, finally. I seem to have screwed up the soft pupil edge, though. Grrr.

The iris rim looks amazing. And I don't think the pupil edge is too hard. I've seen pretty hard edges on photographs of eyes.

Whenever I think the eye is perfect now, you're making it better still. I think you should seriously think about selling the know-how, if not the product. Realistic eyes are so immensely important in CGI, not just in the Poser world.

Should I post it as is? I'm still not certain I have position and rotation correct.

Also, I did some very exacting measuring today.

If we assume the Poser scale of 1 PNU = 8 feet or 96 inches (not the current 103.2 inches which I now reject even though that is the conversion in Poser Inches), then according to my measure, the existing Antonia eye is much too big, which is why I had to decrease the size of the iris and cornea to the point where they are not anatomically correct with the eye, but are almost correct with the face.

Antonia's eye diameters are

Height or Width: 1.284 inch = 32.62 mm
Depth: 1.356 inch = 34.45 mm

I found many sources of eye dimensions and they disagree somewhat, but all agree that the eye diameter is in the range 23.5 mm to 25 mm. And they all agree that the cornea diameter is about half the eye, or around 12 mm.

My cover object, which is more than the cornea (includes the "limbus" - the connective tissue between sclera and cornea) is 15.24 mm, making my cornea about 13 mm, slightly too large. But it's about the same as the old Antonia eye. (I didn't measure the old cornea exactly.)

I'm troubled by this. The eye should not be this big. I believe it is the reason why I do not see what I expect to see with regard to falloff of lighting on the sclera. It seems like it's too flat, because the sphere is too large. Thoughts? Is it possible to change the eye size to a proper 25mm, and adjust the eyelids to match? (You'd have to bring the outside corners in a bit.)

Also, I have questions about the proper implementation of the pupil dilation morph. I read you guys a while back saying morphs should not come in at non-zero values. But the pupil dilation morph works best if you start with contracted pupils (at 0) and then dilate the pupil from there, with .5 being the "normal" or typical state. Here they are at .5. Thoughts?

bagginsbill: I know I said I'd build your eyes into Antonia, but I'm still wondering whether I should.

One reason is the licensing. You'd effectively have to allow anyone to use your eyes free of charge for anything they want, including multi-million dollar film projects. That doesn't seem right to me. You could of course say the same thing about Antonia, but that's a different story. No one would use a canned character for any big project, but technology to create realistic eyes would definitely be much sought for. Even if your version is made for Poser, people can still study your material settings and recreate those in other software.

Another reason is that I fear it would be throwing pearls before swine. If you look at how most people use Poser in renders, they don't deserve truly realistic eyes built straight into the figure. We'd probably get endless complaints about the cover actors not rendering right in D|S, blocking the preview and so on. So why not leave them as add-ons for people who really have a use for them?

That said, I'll leave it completely up to you. If you want them built into Antonia, I'll use them in that way. If you want them left as props, I'll do that. Of course if you figure out how to use them as props, it should be very easy to adapt them to other figures like V4 etc.

Now about the dimensions of the eyes: since Poser scale is arbitrary, the important question is whether the eyes are correctly sized in relation to Antonia's head. I have to admit I haven't taken any measurements when modeling it, except the obvious ones regarding the vertical eye positions and such. So it is entirely possible, although it doesn't seem so, that some of the proportions are not quite correct.

Maybe before we make any changes that would require re-shaping the lids, I should go and find some information on the skull-size, eye-distance etc for an adult female so that we can establish an Antonia-centric scale to work from. I think the iris-size you're using now is probably correct, though, in which case the eyeballs should be smaller.

DigitalLion: Do you have any data about the position of the eyes in relation to each other and within the skull (distance, angles, etc.)?

I asked Leo and he says:

If we would have a halfway fixed angle and postition of the eyes most opticans would be unemployed. The angle and position of eyes can be extremely different.

I have to add some things in german now:
Wenn Du vom Gullstrandschen Normalauge ausgehst, dann liegt der mechanische Augendrehpunkt 13,5 mm hinter dem vorderen Hornhautscheitel (praktisch Vorderkante Hornhaut).
Der durchschnittliche Augenabstand bei einer erwachsenen Frau liegt bei ungefähr 64 mm.

Wenn Leo das Handbuch, in dem er gerade wühlt, richtig deutet, dann kann bei Nullblickrichtung der Winkel des Auges zwischen +8° (nach innen) und -3° (nach außen) einnehmen (Winkel Gamma). Mit Deinen 5 Grad lagst Du also ganz richtig.
Die Lage der Augen (also wie tief sie in den Höhlen liegen) ist so extrem unterschiedlich, dass das Deinem Geschmack übelassen bleiben kann.

Ich füge aber mal hinzu:

There are immense differences (I've added some men here, but anyway...) in eye angle, position and distance, so you have a lot of choice on what you like best:

Okay, I did some measurements on Antonia, but apparently I suck at Googling, because I couldn't find any source for average head length and width in humans, let alone caucasion females. :(

Anyway based on equating a Poser unit to 96 inches as bagginsbill suggested, Antonia's head would be 8.88 inches (22.55 cm) high from top of cranium to chin and 6.05 inches (15.36 cm) wide. That's about an inch shorter and narrower than my head, which seems about right. But if someone can find some actual stats, that would be quite welcome. Her eye distance, measured between the centers of the eyeballs, is 64.4 mm, which is pretty close to the average that SaintFox cited. The distance between the centers of the pupils is of course a bit larger. Being close to the average is a good thing for an all-purpose figure, so I'm quite happy with that.

So I think it's save to say that in proportion to the head, the irises and cornea are indeed of the correct size, which means that the eyeballs need to be made smaller in relation. I'll have a go at that with Antonia's existing eyes to see if there needs to be something changed about the shape of the lids.

I think when you're done, you'll find out why we can't get both eyes to reach the eye opening corners when looking askance, as SF pointed out in my earlier image. Here eye opening is too big.

It was very hard for me to find exact data - in fact I only found some data about men - as I have few spare time at the moment but the term you may want to google is
Anthropometrie

Or it's english translation. It's the science of the measurement of human beings. Unfortunatly this is not a completely innocent science (well, IS there any innocent science at all?) as we all know since the days of the Third Reich. But anyway, this may be an occasion to use it in an innocent way like many engineers do today when creating ergonomic things.

I think  "Anthropometry" or "Anthropometric" in English.

Attached Link: http://www.danmacleod.com/Books/Sample%20Pages/Rules07.htm

BB.....I love those eyes!

Quote - odf......try the link. It's a table of measurements for the average U.S. adult. Both male and female.

BB.....I love those eyes!

Thanks for the link. It doesn't seem too useful without some diagrams that show what's actually measured, though. For example, the head length and the difference between "stature" and eye height seem significantly smaller than I'd expect, so I suspect they don't mean what I'd think they mean.

Hi odf, and all.

I've been checking up on this thread every once in a while because I think Antonia is simply a wonderful character and this whole project is unique in the amount of cooperation between various developers.

I was wondering...since the thread is 165 pages long, is there anyway you could do a summation thread to let the rest of us know how far Antonia has come and to give us a idea of how much more work there is to do before her official release?

smallspace: Well, there's a website now, which would be the natural place for putting information like that. Only someone would need to write it down first... :ohmy:

If you really, really want to dig that deep this MAY be helpful to interprete the data you find on the site that Unicornst linked to
http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm

Attached Link: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:KU9qe9Kwt_UJ:www.ergoworkinggroup.org/ewgweb/SubPages/ProgramTools/AssesmentTools/AnthropometricsTables.doc+anthropometry+tables&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I did find another table that shows the 50th percentile, but again, no references to how the measurements were done. Well, maybe it does. It shows seated and standing. Bonus is that it also shows a bit of the 95th percentile. Maybe it would work better for you?

Couple more links that might be of interest.

http://www.designingforhumans.com/idsa/anthropometric_data/

Scroll down to where you see the head sketches. There's a sample file you can download to go with the illustration. I don't have Excel.

And this one is just some interesting reading about the tables themselves.

http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Ergonomic--Work-Design-Principles-and-Anthropometrics/1053260

Maybe these will help. If not, then I'm definitely out of my league here. grin

Aww...thank you Meike. Now that page is for sure over my head. But it did seem extremely helpful to figuring out what all is measured and how.

Thank you, bagginsbill! Thank you so much!

(And please everyone ignore those ugly AO artifacts. Obviously, I need to go back to P8 render school.)

Not only over your head LOL Over mine as well. But as the site has images I thought that it might answer some questions.

But in fact the proportions look perfect to me - no need for eye-, eyesocket or head-resizing IMHO. But at least we've learnt something more, Joelglaine already said it: We are learning tons of stuff here and suddenly have use for things we've once learnt in school!!

The only problem with this thread may be that it will appear as a result for almost any kind of forum-search people will perform in future... :laugh:

 Wow!  That IS a dramatic difference!  I didn't think it would make that much difference, but you can't argue with that picture, odf!

ANY kind of forum search? We're already there! LOLOLOL:laugh:  That is why I love this project! Knowledge is power, so this makes me more powerful! :lol:

Looks pretty perfect to me, as well. And I love the eyebrows. And sorry if I have this wrong, but the old eyes are on the right, right? Those look much larger than the ones on the left. And it's the left I prefer.

Quote - But as the site has images I thought that it might answer some questions.

Pictures are always good for examples, yes? Just look what one teeny render showed us about eyes. grin

Oomph! Of course that picture I posted didn't have two lefts. Silly, over-excited me! Old over-sized eyes on the left, new and improved ISO eyes on the right, is what I meant to say.

Or in other words: the smaller eyes are the ones that look smaller. :laugh:

Silly you? Heck, I got them turned around myself and then tried to correct you. lol  It's the smaller eyes I like so much.

bagginsbill: I made the eyeball almost precisely 1 inch or 1/96 poser unit in width and height and left the iris the size it was. If you stick close to that size, translating your centers to x = +-0.01339672, y = 0.6538385 and z = .01842967 should give useful results.

This looks in fact like a perfect advertising! If this would be a "coming soon" for a commercial figure people would flood the thread with questions about when, where and how much.

And just for the case: Of course I read your suggestion about the eyebrows and will see what I can do during the next days after I finished my actual project. 

You know, the funny thing about this thread is that I can't see it in the Poser Forum. It says it at the top of this page that I'm in the Poser forum. I know when I post, my name is showing as the last person who posted in the Poser forum when the only thing I replied to is this thread. But I can't find the thread itself. I keep coming back through the ebot sent. Weird.

That's strange. You're not looking for it among the sticky threads, are you? 

Not just the stickies.  Went 3 pages back to find it. Figured it should be showing on the first page since it gets replies pretty regular.

Have you tried clicking on "sort by last reply"?

**Well, I'll be darned. That's a neat little trick. lol

Thanks!
**

Quote - bagginsbill: I know I said I'd build your eyes into Antonia, but I'm still wondering whether I should.

One reason is the licensing. You'd effectively have to allow anyone to use your eyes free of charge for anything they want, including multi-million dollar film projects. That doesn't seem right to me. You could of course say the same thing about Antonia, but that's a different story. No one would use a canned character for any big project, but technology to create realistic eyes would definitely be much sought for. Even if your version is made for Poser, people can still study your material settings and recreate those in other software.

Another reason is that I fear it would be throwing pearls before swine. If you look at how most people use Poser in renders, they don't deserve truly realistic eyes built straight into the figure. We'd probably get endless complaints about the cover actors not rendering right in D|S, blocking the preview and so on. So why not leave them as add-ons for people who really have a use for them?

That said, I'll leave it completely up to you. If you want them built into Antonia, I'll use them in that way. If you want them left as props, I'll do that. Of course if you figure out how to use them as props, it should be very easy to adapt them to other figures like V4 etc.

Really ? you can keep your new figure this old "swine" is no longer interested .

cheers

Quote -

Really ? you can keep your new figure this old "swine" is no longer interested .

cheers

I don't think you really understood what he meant by all that. While his wording may have been a bit...unfortunate, you can't deny what he said is true to a large degree.

I'm sure odf was being ironic, but if bear is unhappy, I'm sure a full refund can be easily arranged...

Quote -
One reason is the licensing. You'd effectively have to allow anyone to use your eyes free of charge for anything they want, including multi-million dollar film projects. That doesn't seem right to me. You could of course say the same thing about Antonia, but that's a different story. No one would use a canned character for any big project, but technology to create realistic eyes would definitely be much sought for. Even if your version is made for Poser, people can still study your material settings and recreate those in other software.

I don't think it really matters much though, Just like most people wouldn't use a "canned character" for any major production, Poser's render engine and animation tools really aren't up to the task either. It may be fine for pre visualization, and many people use Poser for that, but when it comes to heavy duty animation and rigging and rendering, Poser falls far short. And while these eyes may be rather high tech and innovative for the Poser world, it's nothing that experienced people can't easily reproduce with mental ray, for example.
That's going to sound like a dig at Poser, but I don't mean it that way. The simple fact of it is, while Poser tech types might find it an interesting challenge to achieve such things in Poser, studios don't have the time for it, and it's a whole lot easier to use the geometry in a more capable app like Maya, which definitley has the lion's share of studio usage due to it's amazing animation tools, render engine, and distributed rendering.
As it is, animation capabilities aside, until Poser's raytracing gets considerably faster, I don't think it would be used much by casual hobbyists either, aside from in still imagery.

Quote - I'm sure odf was being ironic, but if bear is unhappy, I'm sure a full refund can be easily arranged...

Ah yes, a refund. Check's in the mail and all that. ;-)