PDA

View Full Version : cg humans - Jacques Defontaine



erikals
03-17-2019, 03:28 AM
just for inspiration >

https://tkio.artstation.com

https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/016/459/792/large/jacques-defontaine-rperlman-front-v00.jpg

prometheus
03-17-2019, 06:09 AM
just for inspiration >



Fantastic look, could have fooled me for the real photo look.
Do you know if he modeled Ron Pearlmans head, or if it was a head scan from him?

erikals
03-17-2019, 06:49 AM
from what i know, he always starts from scratch in Zbrush :)

ianr
03-17-2019, 06:55 AM
Out of the park. It must be before he turned Red? lol

TheLexx
03-17-2019, 08:00 AM
Very very good and an extremely interesting subject. It evokes an observation about head modelling in the LW9 book which really had a profound impact on me at the time - that of the main inherent qualities for a head model to be successful, contrary to what people might think "looking good is not one of them".

As long as it is not graceless to scrutinise :), on a scale of 0% to 100% how far does anyone think he has hit an exact likeness ? I think the gallery hovers around 97-99%, with the Ben Kingsley actually at 100% to my eye. Most of the head modelling tutorials rely on "passport neutral" front and side reference shots, where even the tiniest deviation will impact - not always easy to come by, or to compensate any perspective distortion which may be present, so the artists eye is still critical even with photographs. The human brain is evolved to pretty much look for the full mark, which is probably also the factor in uncanny valley facial animation. Good work, and a fascinating subject to widen with anyone else's other insights or observations. :)

erikals
03-17-2019, 08:27 AM
would be cool to see how far LightWave 2019 could be pushed in that regard,
below, a tweaked Craig Monins "RebelHill" render - http://www.rebelhill.net/html/rhlsr.html

https://i.imgur.com/DovMPAQ.jpg

Ma3rk
03-17-2019, 11:11 AM
Stunning. He's quite a few in just that collection. Wonder what the average time start to finish is?

He also goes on about VRay, vs. Arnold, etc. Maybe it's just me but it seems were pretty near the point of splitting the already split hairs in some regards. It's ALL looking incredible & will only fine tune from here. There's still a point of diminishing returns isn't there?

prometheus
03-17-2019, 02:30 PM
would be cool to see how far LightWave 2019 could be pushed in that regard,
below, a tweaked Craig Monins "RebelHill" render - http://www.rebelhill.net/html/rhlsr.html

https://i.imgur.com/DovMPAQ.jpg

So no head scan, thatīs even more impressive then to know that it was sculpted, the rebel hill render is a head scan..as for rendering, quite decent for the skin, but the Vray render is at a whole different level I think, especially the eyes.

The hair is also stunning in the Ron Pearlman image, as well as the likeness me thinks.
I took a look at his other actor portraits, and they are not as good in likeness as this one, the first Charlize Theron image lacks some likeness ..which He himself also mentions, Ben Kingsley looks decent, but not as near as Pearlman, Harrison Ford I didnīt even recognize as Harrison Ford until I read the article.

erikals
03-17-2019, 02:43 PM
ditto to all of that :)

Vray does a Very nice job when it comes down to human skin / human portraits. Hats off really.  https://i.imgur.com/tJGL61i.png

thekho
03-17-2019, 03:08 PM
Yeah he create a model by himself. No head scan used.

Jacques Defontaine is my favourite 3D artist and always inspire me to create photorealistic character head. You know he used to lightwave before. He is using Modo 3d and Maya now.

His old lightwave work in 2000s- https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?8599-Character-Black-Male-(Texture-update)

https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?1138-Head-textures-almost-done

erikals
03-17-2019, 03:48 PM
he certainly did some nice LightWave stuff way back.

another great artist is > Luc Bégin
http://www.cgfeedback.com/cgfeedback/showthread.php?t=6054
and also onto something > Ralf
http://www.cgfeedback.com/cgfeedback/showthread.php?t=4876&page=52

TheLexx
03-18-2019, 04:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnfVrP6L89M&list=PLhnHFsOn0cgdUieBhbG74SC-7MbX4JIGc

FWIW, this is the only time I have seen a head modelling vid where the reference image is a single shot which is neither front or side (in Maya but should be translatable). It is really interesting how the guy's mind is figuring out the offset image while working (he is a good 2D artist which seems to help a lot).

:)

erikals
03-18-2019, 04:32 PM
derailing a bit, but, Realtime... >


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahNfCGrqZqE

Ztreem
03-18-2019, 06:21 PM
Nice. The realtime hair looks better than anything I’ve seen produced in fiberfx the last ten years. :D

erikals
03-18-2019, 06:39 PM
Nice. The realtime hair looks better than anything I’ve seen produced in fiberfx the last ten years. :D
but honestly, not many LightWavers tried to push FiberFX very far.
i smacked up a FiberFX render in LightWave 2019 and was able to get a decent result on the First try.
and i personally sukh at lighting / rendering (!)

so, no, wouldn't blame LightWave 2019 here.

i encourage other wavers to share test renders. FiberFX is way better these days.

TheLexx
03-19-2019, 03:09 AM
but honestly, not many LightWavers tried to push FiberFX very far.Can I put you on the spot (if you don't mind :)). I never saw too much of either FiberFX or Sasquatch, so if you had to choose, which did you prefer under the respective versions of LW ?

JohnMarchant
03-19-2019, 04:24 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts

Chris Jones as well.

ianr
03-19-2019, 10:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts

Chris Jones as well.


What he said (bump)

Ztreem
03-19-2019, 11:03 AM
but honestly, not many LightWavers tried to push FiberFX very far.
i smacked up a FiberFX render in LightWave 2019 and was able to get a decent result on the First try.
and i personally sukh at lighting / rendering (!)

so, no, wouldn't blame LightWave 2019 here.

i encourage other wavers to share test renders. FiberFX is way better these days.

So its just that Lightwavers are lazy? That actually says it all, the tool is so hard to use so you must fight it to get a nice render out of it.

Rayek
03-19-2019, 01:38 PM
Back on topic: I always view renders such as this one as supremely high quality pieces of realistic looking art - similar to the works of highly trained oil painters who paint realistically and try to achieve a photo realism, and even looking better than an actual photo, without actually achieving photo realism. Or a perfectly executed bust in marble.

To me it looks obviously like a CG render. It's not photo realistic - it is hyper-realistic. Too clean. But in a good way, of course.

It's a testament to the technical and artistic capabilities of the artist. Looks beautiful.

Aside from VFX and Movies, historical reconstructions, situations where a photograph is impractical or impossible, and fine-tuning one's technical skills, I don't really see the use of a perfect photographic render. Take a photograph.

And therefore I like this image, because it is NOT photo-realistic. I call this hyper-realistic work, and it is superbly executed technically.

erikals
03-19-2019, 01:55 PM
So its just that Lightwavers are lazy?
so you are saying that if LightWavers don't execute several great FiberFX tests, it is because they are lazy.

doubt it.

it can be due to, lack of users, lack of time, lack of vfx professionals, etc etc.

--------------------------------------------


FiberFX or Sasquatch, so if you had to choose, which did you prefer under the respective versions of LW ?
FiberFX, hands down.

erikals
03-19-2019, 02:02 PM
It's not photo realistic - it is hyper-realistic. Too clean. But in a good way, of course.
not sure if you took art class, but "hyper-realistic" is actually the correct term. :king:
and i kinda agree, it looks like a hyper/photoreal mix. creating perfect photorealism is quite difficult.


Aside from VFX and Movies, historical reconstructions, situations where a photograph is impractical or impossible, and fine-tuning one's technical skills, I don't really see the use of a perfect photographic render. Take a photograph.
i know Jacques worked on Avatar, so it wouldn't surprise me if the specific render was a test for some sort of upcoming facial animations.

Rayek
03-19-2019, 02:38 PM
not sure if you took art class, but "hyper-realistic" is actually the correct term. :king:
and i kinda agree, it looks like a hyper/photoreal mix. creating perfect photorealism is quite difficult.



I did! Long time ago, though.

I recall doing a drawing course, and I had created a quite real and convincing render of a tree branch. The art instructor was not amused, because it "looked too real", and I had used visual "tricks".

That's when I quit that class. I am a firm believer that to abstract nature and reality, as an artist we need to understand the visual structure first and foremost. I met too many "forward looking artists" who couldn't render a convincing cube and sphere even if their lives depended on it, let alone render a realistic depiction of a human being.

prometheus
03-19-2019, 03:06 PM
So its just that Lightwavers are lazy? That actually says it all, the tool is so hard to use so you must fight it to get a nice render out of it.


I am not Lazy, if I find a tool or area of passion, such as clouds...I work a lot with it, if it isnīt in my way too much that is..which I always felt about fiberfx, and except for clouds god knows I love hair, on beautiful beings and as a dream to have it mysefl( and hereīs where you all see me polishing my free landing area on top of the head)

Previously we had the issues of instability up till 2015, and after that we got a new type of primitives requiring a lot of AA and is really slow to render..for me it is untolerable, though I think I may percieve a bit of speed enhancement in 2019, but canīt tell for sure, it is however much slower than GPU solutions.

Ztreem
03-19-2019, 04:49 PM
so you are saying that if LightWavers don't execute several great FiberFX tests, it is because they are lazy.




Not at all. You indicated that you think that LW users has not pushed fiberfx very far, as if they not work hard enough. That's why I wonder if you think Lwavers are lazy? I know that alot of community members has worked very hard to get anything decent out of fiberfx and most has not succeeded. why? not because they have not tried hard enough, it's because fiberfx is buggy, crashy or very hard to work with. It's sad that after more than 10 years it's still not up to par with other solutions. Most people has given up and do hair styling in other apps and most don't do hair at all in Lw. And now realtime rendering in Eevee & UE looks better than fiberfx that takes hours to render, isn't it a bit sad?

VonBon
03-19-2019, 08:43 PM
The issue here is Rendering Power and the Time it takes to get realistic visuals.

I believe I can get realistic results from FiberFX, if I had the Rendering Power and Time just to prove a point,
but I don't.

sadkkf
03-20-2019, 11:58 AM
Kris Costa has amazing work as well.

https://www.artstation.com/kriscosta