Thoughts on Eyes



  • Feel free to continue the conversation on eyes in this thread.



  • @pumeco said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    Some nice renders in here, but I'd like to point out something important, hopefully without getting my head bitten off for honest criticism.

    There's an epic problem among the CG community, and it seems especially notable in the DAZ/Poser/iClone artist communities. I really wish someone would put a tutorial out there and pretty much force everyone to watch it because it's clear that hardly anyone knows how to do even half-decent eyes. We have reflection, specular, and refraction in all of these programs, therefore, there is absolutely no excuse for eyes looking lifeless or hazed like they do in almost evert humanoid render I see in these communities.

    The eyes are, in my opinion, the single most important aspect of making a CG figure look as if it actually has some life to it. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the matter, but I do know why a lot of otherwise fine CG artists are literally 'sucking the life' from the characters they're creating.

    • Never use baked reflections.
    • Make use of real reflections as much as you can, but don't overdo the level of reflection.
    • Consider eye convergence, if you switch between looking into each eye seperately, both should look as if they're looking directly at you.

    They're just a few basics that can make all the difference. I'm going to risk looking really ignorant here and tell you all that my character looks infinitely more 'alive' than any other character posted so far in this thread. She's just a quickie, low-poly, rendered in realtime, and has fairly unrealistic facial characteristics. Yet despite all that, she looks "alive" because "the eyes have it". The Poser artists that stand out almost always the ones who understand the importance of the eyes.

    Try it, stare into the eyes of your figures and see if you "feel" a soul or fakery. If you feel a soul, you did it right, but if you feel fakery, you didn't. Eyes are vital, they can make even the poorest of figures, and the poorest quality renders look alive because the eyes are the first things you look into. If you look into fake eyes, you'll feel fakery. But if you look into real eyes, you'll feel a soul behind them.

    You need to capture the soul of real eyes, there is no excuse for not being able to do so. Superfly is an incredible tool , but unless you make use of the features of that tool in the way they're intended, your renders are going to look like realistic fake objects, not realsitic real objects. So please, if you're doing figures, spend some time on understanding eyes, what you should do with them and what you should not do with them.

    I generally agree with your comments about eyes. I disagree with your assessment of your own character.



  • @pumeco said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    Good, that's what I want you to say, I want people to say to themselves, damn this pumeco, who does he think he is?
    I can do way better!

    Good, cause again, that's what I want you to do, I just want to see some realistic figures that happen to have realistic eyes to go with them!
    There are plenty who know how to do that, I've just not seen any in this thread so far apart from mine, so, bring on the eyes!

    Haha, you're on a mission. ;)

    Be encouraged to show us how awesome your Superfly work is.



  • @pumeco said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    Yup, on a mission to see believable eyes :-D

    There may already be a thread about eyes here (at least about materials for eyes), but perhaps "realistic eyes" would be worth its own thread.



  • @pumeco said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    If there is a thread about believable eyes (and assuming it's a good one), I wish people would take notice of it then!

    And wow, look at that, two lovely people have marked my post down for being honest and offering advice. I wonder if it's an inside operation designed to get me banned ASAP when my reputation falls below a certain level?

    So anyway, back to the original point. My render is from a renderer that is based on 15 year old DX9 game engine technology for crying out loud! It's a realtime render of a low-poly figure from an ancient renderer! The eyes still look infinitely better and "alive" than any I've seen posted in this thread even though you have Superfly render technology! There is simply no excuse for that, that is my point. So don't get in a huff about it, don't start throwing a childish fit and marking people down, but instead listen to what is being pointed out to you and you'll realise there's a community-wide problem, there is a distinct inability to do believable eyes.

    I was looking at an email from DAZ's marketing team just the other week, and it's usually the same old story. The eyes look like crap. They either look as if they're on drugs, drunk, going blind, or dead! The same is true here, the majority of people posting in this thread have no clue about how to do eyes. But look into how to do it and you'll be glad you did because your character renders will be all the better for it.

    BTW, another little tip I forgot is that eyes do not have razor-sharp edges to the Pupil and Iris. Go check your own eyes, go check the eyes in my render, then go check your own renders :-D

    Happy to help!

    Perhaps there is something to be said about your presentation of your opinion...?

    "I'm going to risk looking really ignorant here and tell you all that my character looks infinitely more 'alive' than any other character posted so far in this thread."

    Perhaps insulting everyone in the thread under the guise of constructive criticism isn't the best way to approach a topic.

    (It must be the weekend. I'm surprised no one else has chimed in yet.)

    That aside, I don't disagree with your comments about eyes in CG work in general.

    Yes, they are often either completely neglected, or totally overdone.

    Keep in mind that Superfly is new. Everyone is still learning how to obtain the best results we can.

    In the meantime, I welcome you (again) to post your best work so we can have a look at it.



  • @pumeco In my renders, unless the figure is interacting with another figure or a prop, then I pose the eyes so they are looking at the camera. I have noticed that if I set the aspect of the image to portrait I have a very difficult time getting the eyes posed. They looked like they are at the camera but I hit the render button and they miss their mark.

    Still having issues with reflections on the eye surface with Superfly but only been at it for a couple of days. Firefly I had down pretty much.0_1466878389695_Maggy both lights.jpg



  • @James_in_3D said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    Perhaps insulting everyone in the thread under the guise of constructive criticism isn't the best way to approach a topic.

    LOL, ya think?



  • @Glitterati3D said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    @James_in_3D said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    Perhaps insulting everyone in the thread under the guise of constructive criticism isn't the best way to approach a topic.

    LOL, ya think?

    Some people seem to have trouble understanding this. Some people need it pointed out. Some people completely miss understatement.



  • @James_in_3D said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    @Glitterati3D said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    @James_in_3D said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    Perhaps insulting everyone in the thread under the guise of constructive criticism isn't the best way to approach a topic.

    LOL, ya think?

    Some people seem to have trouble understanding this. Some people need it pointed out. Some people completely miss understatement.

    And some people were never taught they shouldn't walk in a room and start tossing it.


  • Poser Team

    Ok folks, lets calm down a bit. Not everyone is going for realism.



  • And with that post I will stop feeding the trolls. plonk



  • @pumeco I do not want to get much into it, but if you say things like that your "eyes still look infinitely better and more "alive"" you sound very arrogant and rude, even if it would be true . While I think criticism is generally a good thing for artists, yours is everything but constructive, because you only use subjective and non-measurable qualities like "alive" and "soul" to criticise all the images posted in this thread and this does not help anyone creating better renders. So why not share a few tips on how to actually render better eyes?



  • @n-i-c-l-a-s said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    @pumeco I do not want to get much into it, but if you say things like that your "eyes still look infinitely better and more "alive"" you sound very arrogant and rude, even if it would be true . While I think criticism is generally a good thing for artists, yours is everything but constructive, because you only use subjective and non-measurable qualities like "alive" and "soul" to criticise all the images posted in this thread and this does not help anyone creating better renders. So why not share a few tips on how to actually render better eyes?

    Well said.



  • Ways and means, dude. The thing is, BB can be pretty blunt but he also shows how to do things, gives examples, screenies of material room set ups etc. I feel like I've made a leap in understanding Poser's lights in Superfly (enough to actually publish a tutorial on it), but rather than 'rubbing people's noses in it' I just post my renders... if people ask 'how did you do that?' I tell them (or point at the tutorial).
    A good render is made up of composition, lighting, materials. I can now do 1 and 2, working on 3. I wish BB and Teyon were more forthcoming on their processes, but hey, I take what I can get. I don't disagree with your assertions on the importance of eyes, but 'shaming' people never works... if you want to make an impression here, the easiest way I've seen is to post a killer image and just wait to see if anyone asks how you did it. Support as well as critique... if someone posts an image where you think the eyes are good, say so and ask them to post the light/material set up... lighten up on the ad hominem stuff...



  • @pumeco said in Post Your SuperFly Renders:

    @n-i-c-l-a-s
    Like I said, my attitude was intentional. Baggins tried the subtle approach and as far as I recall, nothing came of it. It was like yeah, we're not very good at eyes, but anyway ... and it was forgotten about. Looking through this thread, it was impossible not to get irritated by the disregard people seem to have for the importance of eyes that have "life" to them. Superfly is proof, yet again, that no matter how advanced the render technology, nothing has changed because most people still don't understand that the renderer does not do this stuff for you.

    Artists who work with CG figures have to learn how to do eyes properly, it's not optional, you absolutely have to do it or you'll fail time and time again. This is why I'm rubbing your faces in it. I'm basically trying to disgrace you by pointing out that your eyes are getting outclassed by a render that was done in a realtime DX9 game engine that has been around for over a decade now!

    You have "Superfly" for crying out loud, so there is no excuse for this, especially as learning to do believable eyes is dead easy anyway, and there is surely plenty of stuff out there already that will teach how it's done!

    Bloody hell, look at the time ... I'm off to bed!

    Again, you describe that, what you think is missing in all the renders here, with the completely subjective quality "life", so I will conclude that you actually do not know much about rendering eyes. And no, the render you posted does not help making your point and it does not outclass anything (yes, this attitude was intentional, too :P )


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @pumeco
    Creepy is the correct word.
    Beautiful?
    Certainly not.
    Realistic?
    Not in this galaxy.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    0_1466950882500_MegFoster2.jpg

    0_1466950994350_Traci_ColorPencil.jpg

    @pumeco please note. I have a B.A. in art, I have been drawing for over 50 years and doing digital art for over 30 years, I have recieved awards for my artwork. This is my background, fact and not self professed expertise. Top image is a photo of Actress Meg Foster ... the closest I could find to having eyes like your image. The second is a prismacolor portrait that I made of my roommate's daughter on her graduation. I study eyes. (maybe because I'm visually ipaired, but I've done extensive studies both with traditional art at digital. I have threads around the web on getting realistic eyes in Poser, Just ask bagginsbill, who has helped me immensely in this goal. I don't have it perfect yet myself, but I"'m working on doing my best.

    0_1466951956224_Danny3.jpg

    Honestly, I find your eyes far less lifelike than any of these, even if I need to use my own studies as an example. Fellow posters, If I am out of line here, please put me in my place. I have unfortunately taken up the challenge here and this has been bugging me for days. Also ... I totally agree with Tony. Sorry.



  • @pumeco tl; dr



  • @Boni Really impressed by your Prismacolor portrait. I never even once managed to draw an open smile without making it look creepy and wrong. Great work!



  • Thank you, @Teyon, despite what anyone else says, for moving this to another thread. I think this issue does bear some discussion. Assuming the OP stays out of it, I think we can all behave like reasonable people and have a valuable discussion.

    I don't agree at all with the approach the OP took to this issue, nor do I agree with his assertion that his image was somehow the pinnacle of realism. I mean, seriously.

    But... The issue of eyes and realism is as old as art.

    It's something most of us have thought about, struggled with, and sought advice on in many a forum thread.

    So. Eyes.

    Things I thought were fair (and these points are just my opinion based on my experience; I'm not stating these as any kind of universal facts -- and let's be clear: I am NOT validating the OP in any way; I'm only addressing this because almost all of us have thought about this issue):

    • baked reflections aren't necessarily as good as real reflections
      I think baked reflections certainly can have their place, though. Sometimes you want a specific effect. Sometimes you want to do a studio portrait with windows reflecting in the eyes, without going through the struggle of setting up a scene around your character. Sometimes playing with the real reflections and lights doesn't give you the result you want. And this is the key: it's the result the artist wants that is primary.

    • too much reflection is bad
      I have to agree with this; sometimes eyes in cg look like they're made of solid polished glass -- and they aren't. At least mine aren't. If you have eyes (or one eye) that is made of solid polished glass, I apologize for this statement. ;)

    • eye convergence is a major factor in realism
      I agree with this, and it still drives me crazy trying to get it right when a character is looking at the camera. :) Using the "eyes left" or "eyes right" dial that moves both eyes at the same time just moves both eyes at the same time. But depending on the distance of the object being looked at, the angle of the head, and the placement of the object being looked at, either eye might be facing in a slightly different direction, or at a slightly different angle.

    How have you tackled the issue of eyes in your renders?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Graphics Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.