IMO...people don't want things that look fake in a clumsy or unattractive way.  For example, hair that doesn't flow naturally in a reclining pose is just ugly and awkward, no way around it. But hair that is longer and thicker and glossier than real life...people generally do like that. 

SSS skin can look very realistic, but as has been noted...a lot of people are carrying it way beyond realism.  It's being used to give characters a flawless glow that looks almost airbrushed. 

I think what the average Poser user wants is "better than real." 

Quote - the more i read these threads, i think i have come to understand, nobody wants realistic 100%, but almost everyone wants one or more of , realistic skin or realistic eye reflections, or realistic proportions or realistic material shaders, realistic hair, but it seems that the next progression to slap it all into one package makes people recoil and shout "but it wont be art then", or "that will devalue my use of the real hair if the figure looks real".

It's certainly confusing and it seems like people want their cake but are unwilling to eat it.

I am not sure about the other reflections but for me the eye reflections are very important, assuming the render is close enough to see them.  There are many merchant resource eye packs about but almost all have the reflections burnt in.  One recent one pack stated there was a no reflection option yet all of the promos shown were of the burnt in eyes. Is this because the burnt in is easier to use and thus would sell more?  

I have a couple of sets where there is no reflection and I use them all the time, getting any reflection from the lighting in the scene.  I spend time putting the lighting in a position where the highlights are where I want them, much as I would in a photo studio.  Yet for all that, I want the eyes to be believeable not neccessarily real, so if I have a character with alien or cat like eyes I still want the reflections to be believeable. 

The only thing I will not change in the future, and the only thing I am 100% satisfied with is the left hair. :-)
Yeah, both mouths need more work. I know.

Much as I admire your efforts vilters, those are just not something that I would EVER want up close.

Laurie

I think maybe, lots of words and few pictures for any number of reasons, personally I haven't managed to render anything that looks lifelike(i'm changing from the word realistic) and as such anything I posted wouldn't exactly enhance the case for, it would only show my poor use of the medium. I would though be more than interested to see anyones efforts at producing lifelike renders, spots ,warts n all...........

Quote - Much as I admire your efforts vilters, those are just not something that I would EVER want up close.

Laurie

And we would be at the same reasons why you left the conversation in the first place. I respect the work you're doing, Vilters, but you need to make your figures look human before they can be considered in this conversation. You haven't did any work on them (except new clothes) since the last time you showed them, so how can the be useful to the conversation now?

The mouth needs more work.

Quote - Close up for LauriA

The mouth needs more work.

Still no, sorry ;).

Laurie

I know, I am just showing what "can" be done with these Lo 8.000 Poly figures.
They will never compete with 60.000 poly figures.

At least they look more human then all the plastic that is out there :-)

Quote - I know, I am just showing what "can" be done with these Lo 8.000 Poly figures.
They will never compete with 60.000 poly figures.

To be totally honest, the poly count has nothing to do with it... at least the as far as this conversation goes. The conversation is really about how a figure looks, not how many polys that the figures have. And I think that's the point you're totally missing. You need to work on the look, because you're denying what your figures look like with the the following statement:

Quote - At least they look more human then all the plastic that is out there :-)

Quote - What's different about now?  Genesis?  Weight-mapping?  I guess I just don't see the technological leap in mesh shaping that we've gotten in materials.  Things like facial and body proportions...vendors have been adjusting those since Vicky 1 at least (remember Supermodel Vicky?)

It's the accuracy in shaping that's the issue here for me. Human eyeballing and vertice pushing (even when orthographically placed references are used) just doesn't seem to compare to the shapes a 3d scan can produce, at least not that I've seen in products for sale or in freestuff. Perhaps there are some out there - point me in the right direction.

For example, even when translated onto a much lower poly head the Lee Perry Smith head scan is far more realistic than pretty much any of the M4 head morphs I've seen in these forums, with the exception of a very few. Personally I think you can see it in an untextured render.

Maybe that's unfair. I'd like to see some of the best morphs for current and past Poser figures as untextured renders.

All the best.

LROG

Before anyone chews me out, yes it's just a pretty much un-morphed M4 next to LPS. I already know you can do much better with the provided morphs (I just don't happen to have them for M4).

As a default head I have to say it's better than most, but far from realistic even as a generic form.

Blow me out with some better examples.

...one wonders if an entirely realistic Poser model would look realistic when filtered through the lens of poser, if this makes any sense.

@ vilters, I'm a little curious why you always do your images and figures such a disservice by never giving them a a natural expression or pose. All of your figurative renders look like an image from a Kraftwerk album cover. Wide eyes, unposed hands in a robotic fashion.

Haven't you ever considered this?

...It's extremely curious in relation to your critical and minutiae leaning tendencies.

While I was eating, they started reading all the comments here.

And they RGB'd.

Now see what you'v done :-(

huh? What who has done. it's a critique. You put yourself in the arena with obvious inclinations and frankly verbal opinions... my only suggestion was that you pose your figures a little more if you are going to be so adamant and opinionated about poser.

nothing more.

Whats RGB'd?

pose the the hands, fer christsakes! ;)

Edit... oh, I get it now.

They turned Red Green and Blue

RED
GREEN
BLUE

:-)

PS, the hands are the least of my problems. There was only one mesh error in the original right hand index finger .

i think Vilters was making a jokette after your comment primorge

"one wonders if an entirely realistic Poser model would look realistic when filtered through the lens of poser, if this makes any sense" or it's just a Smurf invasion LOL

I don't think she was impressed!!! Lol.

All the best.

LROG

the thread is about realism and we're posting fairies? WTF? Spare us.

???

Laurie

And what is so wrong?

All the best.

LROG

The original posting was not about reality, but about real faces:-

I would say 97% of poser renders don't have proper faces for V4. What does everyone else think? What is the percentage we're looking for here? It's rarely to actually see a render with a "character" and not simply another V4.  What steps can we take to make sure V4 looks like a real person, a character and not simply V4?

There is a difference.

All the best.

LROG

Done being a troll now...

Hmmm!!! Also wondering why all those non V4 renders in a thread called:-

What percentage of poser renders actually have proper faces for v4?

If it isn't V4 then... Well it's not needed.

At least Pixie is V4.

All the best.

LROG

I think it has been mentioned before, but when you look at an average human face, it is not quite symetrical, very often one eye appears slightly higher than another, sometimes the nose doesnt look like it is quite centered, maybe the ears are slightly askew on the skull, but more than that i believe it is expression and skin tone which can first catch your eye, from a distance in any nightclub or shopping mall if you look at the attractive blonde or brunette in the corner, her skin can appear flawless, but closer up, in the heat of the sun or crush of bodies, the true imperfections, flaws start to appear. Many renders for instance seem to encapsulate the model during or after some form of physical activity or even just the static sunbathing beauty, how many are shown with the characteristic bead of sweat on the top lip or brow, how many have flawless porcelain skin even after their fictional battle with the dragon, petty points i suppose, additionally apart from the figure perfect model how many have the perfect physique, in all honesty probably more now than in my youth due to the celebrity lifestyle that many try to emulate, but walk down any high street any where in the world on any given day and count those perfect creatures. I'd wager not too many. Not that there is anything wrong with perfection it's just that some people i think like to differ from the norm.

Take the perfectly skinned 18th century model in her perfumed wig and extravagant ball gown, in all reality her skin was probably pock marked, her scalp and forehead flea bitten and her face caked in a thick layer of powder. Anyone want to recreate that? I doubt it, but it would be great to be able to :)

I also think there is another aspect here and that is the way we are looking.  When I meet a person for the first time I note the general shape and distinquishing aspects of the face.  I do not tend to look to see if one eye is higher than the other, or if one ear sticks out excessivley.  With any new figure we are looking for problems or the bits we don't like, not an approach that most people use when they meet. 

In fact I think it is the same with objects, when most people when see a steam train thet will see the overall nature of the beast not count the number of rivets around the boiler.  Now I know from my other hobby that such people exist but they tend to be the exception. 

Like the nose, There's a shortage of prodigious honkers for V4... I for one find the characters with unusual, larger noses in the MP to be more interesting.

I did a morph freebie back in the V2 days...."The No-Nose Revolt" nose morphs (normal noses) LOL. So, obviously those microscopic snot lockers have been around since Poser was young. LOL. I hated them then as much as now. Although I do have to admit you don't see it quite so much as we used to.

Laurie

Has anyone looked at this thread?... http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2862309

I was like "are you kidding". Talk about a needle in a haystack!

A few I've done over the years ... (I hope the links work right, they should open in a separate window). Some are celebs, some are just trying for something unique and realistic.  All V4.

Punk'd

Arachnophobia

You Wanna Be on Top?

Natural Beauty

Classic Movie Roles: Cleopatra

Scarlett: Final Morph

Hard to define "better." Pagan is clearly beloved of his pixie, but she's not very realistic.  She's got pointed ears, fer crissakes. 

I do agree the one on the right in your image has a unique, real look, but I wouldn't want a figure that looked like that.  At least, not as the default.

I hadn't realized 3D scanning was that big a deal.  It's still not really affordable for the average Poser merchant, is it? DAZ claims they use 3D scans to make their figures. 

I don't particular care for realism, so I don't have their "digital clones."  I do have Dina (the above image), who was made from 3D scans of a real person, but this was ten years ago.

Perhaps someone who has DAZ's Reby Sky or Anna Marie Goddard could post their head morphs.  They were made from scans of real people.  Real people who are somewhat more attractive than average, but real people nonetheless.

Quote - I did a morph freebie back in the V2 days...."The No-Nose Revolt" nose morphs (normal noses) LOL. So, obviously those microscopic snot lockers have been around since Poser was young. LOL. I hated them then as much as now. Although I do have to admit you don't see it quite so much as we used to.

Laurie

It's always the nose I go for changing first, whether morph dials, or some attempt at sculpting now I've got the tools to do that...

...then the ears.

Quote - Hard to define "better." Pagan is clearly beloved of his pixie, but she's not very realistic.  She's got pointed ears, fer crissakes. 

I do agree the one on the right in your image has a unique, real look, but I wouldn't want a figure that looked like that.  At least, not as the default.

I hadn't realized 3D scanning was that big a deal.  It's still not really affordable for the average Poser merchant, is it? DAZ claims they use 3D scans to make their figures. 

I don't particular care for realism, so I don't have their "digital clones."  I do have Dina (the above image), who was made from 3D scans of a real person, but this was ten years ago.

Perhaps someone who has DAZ's Reby Sky or Anna Marie Goddard could post their head morphs.  They were made from scans of real people.  Real people who are somewhat more attractive than average, but real people nonetheless.

 

Well, whether you care for it or not, you do have to confess to having recognised a difference between M4 and the LPH model in terms of a sense of RW realism.

I don't necessarily want to get hung up on the idea that scanning real heads is the only way to go for those of us that do want at least an option for an accurate realism - I've seen very passable hand-sculpted heads in the 3d realm. But hand-sculpting does take time and I think there are very subtle nuances in shapes that give the game away to our highly honed sense of recognising that difference between real and cariacature, especially where faces are concerned.

Looking at your render of Dina, I wouldn't like to commit myself as to whether she is a 100% scanned shape, but she does have a greater degree of structure in form and proportion to my eyes than many morphs I've come across. She looks pretty nice as a base for adding in textures and shaders, and I'd bet those shapes would respond to a variety of lighting conditions and maintain that structure and features better than a lot of morphs.

For those interested in any degree of realism in 3d, I think it's important to recognise the part mesh shapes play. Because if the underlying structure look ok from one angle and lighting state but ropey from another, it's going to cause at least some degree of frustration and that's before you add textures and shaders into the mix and get distracted by those. 

Listen, I hear the cases for real/cartoon and the spaces in-between. There's no right or wrong in whatever people might want to render - it's meaningless to argue in those terms, I agree. I'd just rather there was a slightly wider set of choices for those that want them.

With regards to all of the stuff I have for V4, the hardest thing I find for making more realistic looking renders with her is that (with the exception of one) all my character texture sets have that flawless skin colouring, with a repeated skin texture applied to it, and of course, the bump maps are created by filtering the diffuse map, which is highly innacurate.

Of all the character sets I have, one of the V4 Elite characters has a really great diffuse map. it has fleckles, marks and blemish's on it.  Unfortunately the bump map sufferes the same as every other one though.  Unrealistic repeated patterns.

When you look at the Lee Perry-Smith model without bump mapping, its a great shape but with the bump mapping applied it comes to life. While vendors continue to create bump maps (and specular maps for that matter) using the diffuse map with filters, V4 is never going to come to life in the same way.

I also don't mind being this side of the uncanny valley, as I think Poser isn't the best tool to achieve professional grade photo-realism, so I'm quite content with the degree of accuracy I've already achieved.

Anyway, this is what I've done so far with my DAZ 3rd Gen hybrids. (There is also a M4 morph among them)

As I said, my intention was more to get some uniqueness and personality in a sea of square jawed Mikes and button noses Vickys rather than absolute photorealism.

(Although I'm more than happy if I could buy some laser scanned figure morphs for Poser)

:-)

I was lucky enough to download most of them before he dissapeared as quietly as he arrived.

Here's a little render of THE BOYS:

Note that all three use the exact same head texture, so any difference is solely in the mesh !

:-)

well thats my opinion anyway.

When you go through the poser gallery here, the one thing that stands out more than anything is the complete lack of understanding of real world lighting.  I would say I see about 2% of the poser gallery entries that have lighting that looks realistic and appropriate to the scene. And these images are generally the ones that look most realistic.

take the attached image from my gallery, this was done in poser 7, and uses no form of SSS or anything sophisticated like that. I think this looks quite realistic considering. The character in use here is a highly stylized character and texture set. The lighting, pose and surroundings of this image make it look alot more realistic than it would otherwise.

Take the render by mysticeagle above.  The morph of V4 is quite realistic from what I can tell, but I find those images look just as unrealistic as the other supermodel V4 images in the gallery. and its the lighting that does it.

Quote - I personally dont think the morphed heads are the main problem.  Sure there are some out there that are terrible as far as realistic shape goes, but most of them are within real world possabilities.   My thoughts are that if you saw a person in real life with the exact identical head shape to a V4 character, you would not think they look fake.  The colour of the skin, variations in its texture and appearance, as well as specular reflections and global illumination make people look real in the real world, not the shape of their head. Every now and then you see the odd person online or in real life with some severe dephormations of their head, but they still look realistic.

well thats my opinion anyway.

When you go through the poser gallery here, the one thing that stands out more than anything is the complete lack of understanding of real world lighting.  I would say I see about 2% of the poser gallery entries that have lighting that looks realistic and appropriate to the scene. And these images are generally the ones that look most realistic.

take the attached image from my gallery, this was done in poser 7, and uses no form of SSS or anything sophisticated like that. I think this looks quite realistic considering. The character in use here is a highly stylized character and texture set. The lighting, pose and surroundings of this image make it look alot more realistic than it would otherwise.

 

Not quite sure I'd agree on the point about most V4 morphs falling within RW possibilities. I think you'd most probably find yourself being quite disturbed faced with real people with many of the features we see here - although maybe we're just becoming way too used to the idea of cosmetic surgery, who knows.

I find my own custom morphs way off target when it comes to realism.

Yep, textures, shading and lighting are definitely an issue as well.

Your example render doesn't, I agree, look un-realistic - to a degree. In terms of the characters face it's quite forgiving in that it's quite a distant render, and the pose is really quite natural which always helps. The lighting is also very bright with lots of simulated ambiance, so we're not really getting much of an idea of the specific form as defined by an interplay of light and shadow. It might be interesting if we could see the same face close-up and lit under a different light-set with more directional light.

It's a nice render though - especially for P7.

But now I feel like I'm just sounding argumentative for the sake of it.

Back when I did this I thought it looked quite good.  Now.... not so much LOL

Quote - If I remember correctly, this is the same character, with different makeup and rendered in Poser Pro.

 

Back when I did this I thought it looked quite good.  Now.... not so much LOL

So what would your own self-critique be of this image now - how would you break it down in terms of why it doesn't work so well for you now (given we're discussing 'proper faces for V4', whatever that might be)?

Quote - Perhaps someone who has DAZ's Reby Sky or Anna Marie Goddard could post their head morphs.  They were made from scans of real people.  Real people who are somewhat more attractive than average, but real people nonetheless.

 

Reby Sky does look quite nice - I would like to see an untextured render of this if anyone has her.

Anna Marie Goddard not so much, but it is hard to tell from the Daz promos.

Damn it, I'm going to have to have another go at sculpting a head for V4.

Well, firstly the hair, while strand based it looks terrible so Im not even going to discuss that LOL

I find the general shape of her head to be quite good, sure she looks like a supermodel, but I dont think she looks like an unrealistic one.

The biggest issue for me when I look at this image is the skin.  its too monotone, too flat, and too smooth. The  colour is off and there is no SSS. The Lacrimals are way too bright, and there is a great lack of depth and reflection on the eyes.

but it comes down to the skin. or more accurately the Diffuse and Bump maps in use.  The Diffuse map has little to no variation accross the entire body and the bump map is very unrealistic, which is why its so subtly applied.

I think the lighting in the scene is quite good, and is simulating a daytime scene quite well.  This image was created before poser had different light falloff types, and that gives the lighting too much of a uniform look, which only exasperates the monotone skin issue.

Talk about an excersize in frustration.  I thought I would go through the gallery and try and find a non-photoshopped V4 that looks realistic, but I failed.

It scares how bad some of the popular images are, and not just for realism.

tonight I am going to try and take my V4 character that looks like Scarlett Johansen (its quite an accurate morph, and shes a real person!) as realistic as possible.  No doubt I will fail miserably, but I will try lol.

This is the Anna Marie Goddard morph.

Hard to define "better." Pagan is clearly beloved of his pixie, but she's not very realistic.  She's got pointed ears, fer crissakes.

People are still not getting the difference between a real face as asked by the OP and realisism, which was not asked for by the OP.

Pixie's face is a real looking one, yep she has pointy ears, that's why she is a "Pixie", but that does not detract away from her natural looking face.

If the OP wanted realistic faces, then they would have put it in the first message. It's others misconception of a real looking face to a realistic face that has taken people away from the original message.

All the best.

LROG