3D Rendering

[Mabel Figworthy]

I like the flowing robes!

[fccs]

I like the flowing robes!

I agree. All your 3D renderings are pretty amazing.

[rcperryls]

You can just about see her walking as she goes down that path. There is a very serene feel to the photo. Beautiful.

Carole

[richardandtracy]

I like the flowing robes!

The Kaftan is a strange model. It has to be simulated to get it to drape over the character properly. The figure animation software starts the character in the default pose, applies gravity to the clothing, then in 30 steps moves the character to the desired pose, checking all along for movement due to it's velocity at the end of the last step, collisions between the character and the clothing as well as how gravity acts on it in the current step position. Air resistance is applied a little too, giving a slightly floaty appearance if the material properties warrant it. Silks drape better, muslins float better. This was a thin silk material, so it drapes, but also floats a little.

The clothing 'drape' module addon was initially mooted in 2006, but wasn't perfected until 2019. It took a long time to get it to work properly. And when it is used in the right place, the results are quite spectacular.

Regards,

Richard.

[richardandtracy]

Two weekends ago I was trying to create a model of a wedding ring, fitted it to my favourite character and lost the plot. I was theoretically trying to create an image that showed off the ring so that people would download the freebie once I'd completed it. Instead, it showed the character looking.. well, just being comfortable in herself. I rather like the picture, even though it was totally off script compared to the one I'd intended.


Sometimes you've got to go where the inspiration takes you.

Regards,

Richard

[rcperryls]

Indeed you do. I like this one very much. I do wonder what she is thinking about though. Her expression is very thoughtful. problem solving?

Carole

[Mabel Figworthy]

She could be thinking so many things - very versatile!

[richardandtracy]

On looking at the image again, I think she's planning pain for the cameraman who has disturbed her personal quiet time..

Regards,

Richard.

[richardandtracy]

I am not a real fan of selfies. I always think of the person who makes the image as both a victim of fashion, and a perpetrator of crimes against photographic aesthetics. Unless the photo is good, really good, then the photography compares with the best. So, I aimed for a little image attempting to look as if it's a selfie from someone walking across a covered pedestrian bridge, and tried for some 'artistic values' in the image, being dynamism, flow of interest, attractive result and pleasant tonal qualities:

Tried for a wonky camera angle (20 degrees to vertical) with a camera at around arms-length from the victim-cum-perpetrator's face, featuring a ghost of a smile as she looks into the camera. The rather extreme close-up extended the render time considerably. A full height figure shot from a different camera with the same scene took just a couple of minutes, while the close up took just over 27 minutes.
No part of the figure has ever existed, but the background image is an HDRI 360 degree photo of the 'Adams Place Bridge' in the London Docklands development.

Regards,

Richard

[fccs]

This is amazing!

[Serinde]

Agree!

[Mabel Figworthy]

Eerily lifelike!

[richardandtracy]

Eerily lifelike!

I'm pleased you said that. Really pleased, actually.
There is a point where things get more & more lifelike and, as it does, it starts to look 'eerily' lifelike. Something isn't quite right that you can't really put your finger on, but the oddity is there. Then as it gets more lifelike still, there's a point where suddenly you're convinced it's real and the eeriness disappears. The difference is small, but hard to bridge. However, the fact I've got into the 'eerily lifelike' bracket means I'm getting close!

Regards,

Richard

[Mabel Figworthy]

I've tried to analyse where, for me, the eerie lies in this image, and I've come to the conclusion that it is probably the eyes - the way the iris-and-pupil of the left eye lie in the corner of the eye feels a little odd. But then I have seen real photos of myself and other people where eyes and various other parts of the face and body appear to be in completely unnatural positions, so what do i know!

[richardandtracy]

No, I agree with you. It's sometimes referred to as 'The Uncanny Valley', where images are getting close, but are not quite real enough to look totally real.

My thought was eyes the eyes too, and the lack of a tear meniscus, and possibly needing a few tiny creases around the eyelids, particularly the bottom lid. The top lip looks a tiny bit too smooth. The surface of the eyes are just a tiny amount too glossy too. Possibly need a sleep to be in one eye - mar the perfection a bit, people aren't perfect but pixels can be. Tiny tweaks, but maybe enough. And you may well be right about the left eye being too far over. Both eyes are set to point at the camera, but the limit of movement may be too large when pointing towards the nose.

The hair isn't helping, either. I shall have to think of ways of making it more realistic if possible.

Regards,

Richard

[richardandtracy]

A while back I modelled a freebie bridge for anyone to download. A BIG one. OK, it was huge. Modelled as a one mile long cable stayed bridge with a central span of 535 yards/490 metres, and a clearance to the water of 60m (195 feet). Big enough to get a 1:1 scale model of HMS Victory to sail underneath in the far distance.

The white pixel sized dot at the middle of the main span is a model of a long wheelbase sprinter van. Think I said it was big.

It was meant to be a low detail background model. After playing a bit with it, I found a view where a closer look wasn't too bad, and called the picture 'Phwee, that's BIG':


In order to get the character in the right place for the picture, she had to be standing on thin air, around 40ft up over the inlet. Nice it's possible without a receding scream as the model plummets to the water below..

Regards,

Richard

[Serinde]

Nice also that the area around such a large coastal bridge, presumably near a city if the ship is going to dock anywhere, has been rewild-ed!

[richardandtracy]

I was vaguely imagining something like near Vancouver, where a fair bit of the forest survives.

Or bits in Norway. Wherever possible in Norway they're replacing ferries with big bridges to open the coastline up. And, in Norway they are considering some novel deepwater bridge solutions. In many of the fiords it's too deep to practically build bridge piers, so they are looking at deepwater oil rig technology where anchors are embedded in the sea bed, then a floating rig is winched down into the water so there is a huge upwards force from the buoyancy. This controlled buoyancy force then stabilizes the platform. And the bridge could be built on several of those platforms.

Interesting idea, and it would be fascinating to see how it could be made to fail safe rather than fail dangerous.

Regards,

Richard

[fccs]

Interesting! How many years would it take to build something like that?

[richardandtracy]

About 4000 worker-years for the real thing. Ish. Quite pricey in reality.

The background model about 2 weekends with the right tools.

Regards,

Richard