JackG
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 221
Basically, the tip of the nose needs lowering. This is a sign of older age, the nose (as well as ears) begin to droop.
New Head (likeness attempt)
- Thread starter pokrad
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Basically, the tip of the nose needs lowering. This is a sign of older age, the nose (as well as ears) begin to droop.
Mat Lambert
A Fixture
Ok, this would be the right position, the badge is not right version as it has two guns crossed instead of gun and a sword, it's just "placeholder" so I could sculpt the hat...
This is looking really great but I would say the badge still needs to shift more towards the centre to be over the eye properly. Also the beret rim still looks a little high above the eyebrows on the forehead. Finally, I think your likeness is coming along very well but Connery has more of a square head shape than your model - if you reference the last photo of him you post you can see better what I mean. Perhaps stretching the width of the whole head on your sculpt is an easy way to fix it.
I hope you don't mind me posting what I hope is a few bits constructive criticism - this will be a very popular subject if you are releasing commercially especially if the details are good.
Cheers
Mat
pokrad
A Fixture
@Mat:
No need to apologize for the critics, I said 100 times, and will say one more: I appreciate and consider every single one
Now, there must be one clarification about his head looking to narrow. As You can guess, there is no "perspective" in digital sculpting, computer has to simulate the perspective, and for the Blender and Zbrush there is setting that says how "harsh" that perspective is ( "View lens" in Blender or "Angle of view" in Zbrush). I used default settings when started the head (it helps me to see the depth better), but I often change it to more "realistic" value to check the sculpt. The trouble is, I did not change it when I was doing screen-grabs for the forum.
So many words, but one picture will explain it better - here is the same sculpt with more realistic perspective, and with the original reference image positioned over the sculpt, You can see that it looks wider
@JackG
I will break the symmetry...it will not stay this way. Great tip about looking at images upside-down.
K.U.K. bust is not finished Yet, I have some problems with the connection of the lower part of the torso and ammo pouches, tried to solve them at least 10 times, but nothing looks decent. But the clay will not dry out - I'll finish it sooner or later
@Mat & Jack:
You both got the point about the nose, still does not look right and being too wide on the end is the part of the problem...
Thanks for heads up !
No need to apologize for the critics, I said 100 times, and will say one more: I appreciate and consider every single one
Now, there must be one clarification about his head looking to narrow. As You can guess, there is no "perspective" in digital sculpting, computer has to simulate the perspective, and for the Blender and Zbrush there is setting that says how "harsh" that perspective is ( "View lens" in Blender or "Angle of view" in Zbrush). I used default settings when started the head (it helps me to see the depth better), but I often change it to more "realistic" value to check the sculpt. The trouble is, I did not change it when I was doing screen-grabs for the forum.
So many words, but one picture will explain it better - here is the same sculpt with more realistic perspective, and with the original reference image positioned over the sculpt, You can see that it looks wider
@JackG
I will break the symmetry...it will not stay this way. Great tip about looking at images upside-down.
K.U.K. bust is not finished Yet, I have some problems with the connection of the lower part of the torso and ammo pouches, tried to solve them at least 10 times, but nothing looks decent. But the clay will not dry out - I'll finish it sooner or later
@Mat & Jack:
You both got the point about the nose, still does not look right and being too wide on the end is the part of the problem...
Thanks for heads up !
Mat Lambert
A Fixture
Thanks for the explanation. The comparison image has much better proportions and is starting to look good for Connery.
Once you have his likeness you could use it for his other film roles too! Man Who Would Be King, Bond, Name of the Rose would all be very popular I think!
I'd also encourage you to do the others from A Bridge Too Far - especially ones that could be used again. This photo of Michael Caine would make a fantastic subject.
Cheers
Mat
Once you have his likeness you could use it for his other film roles too! Man Who Would Be King, Bond, Name of the Rose would all be very popular I think!
I'd also encourage you to do the others from A Bridge Too Far - especially ones that could be used again. This photo of Michael Caine would make a fantastic subject.
Cheers
Mat
pokrad
A Fixture
He needs a significant facelift for the Bond
I had in mind something else: Connery head and Urquhart head that fits to the same bust...
"Bridge too far" has some great characters, Cane and Hackman are on my "wish-list"
I had in mind something else: Connery head and Urquhart head that fits to the same bust...
"Bridge too far" has some great characters, Cane and Hackman are on my "wish-list"
Mat Lambert
A Fixture
Ha , I thought that about Bond when I wrote it!He needs a significant facelift for the Bond
I had in mind something else: Connery head and Urquhart head that fits to the same bust...
"Bridge too far" has some great characters, Cane and Hackman are on my "wish-list"
The double bust idea with the film head and real head is a good one too.
Glad to hear of those on your wish list - I would look forward to seeing them all. If you create them as well as your Connery likeness they will be an incredible set.
Cheers
Mat
pokrad
A Fixture
You are being kind, I'm on this forum for a long time and can recognize a good and talented sculptor when I see one (from WIP pics) , and I am not one of them, but I can try to answer...
There are many reasons why digital sculpting can be more "productive"
1. Recycling parts in any scale - once You sculpt for example Kalsnikov You can use it in any scale You want. (Ok, with some minor changes in detail level)
2. You can have Your own base meshes for "humanoids", and other stuff, so You do not need to start from very beginning. Let's say they are like prepared templates (armatures) that are useful for quick start.
With time your "library of templates" only grows and You can be faster. Even I already have some previously sculpted templates of heads, male and female bodies etc...
3. Sculpted piece can be printed with only minimal changes in multiple scales.
Those above are obviously not reasons why I'm learning digital sculpting, but they can be very important to professional sculptor.
Next two could be called "my reasons":
4. With age my eyes are not so good as they used to be, and I can imagine that in ten Years from now I could sculpt only 1/4 and bigger pieces. No matter how good magnify glasses I have...
In digital there is no problem to magnify the desired detail as long as You have enough "resolution". I never printed anything on good quality printer, all my prints were cheap test prints and pure crap, but hope some day that will change too.
5. Why not ? I consider digital sculpting (not to be mistakenly taken as digital scanning and printing) as just another medium for sculpting. Believe me, often things that I have learned in classical sculpting are very useful in digital - and vice versa.
Learning new stuff is fun, and in the end that is the main goal - doing something different from daily job and have fun and relaxation
Hope that this answers You question...
Man, I wrote a half of page again, sorry for that
pokrad
A Fixture
Progress ?!?!
JackG
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 221
Few things I noticed when compared to b/w photo:
-wider nose at nostrils (maybe half a nostril more on either side?)
-has crooked nose, looks like was punched from his right
-more squareness to jowls
-shorten his chin very slightly
-slight drop in the level of his right eye
- less fullness to lower lip
If you agree with any of these, try the changes and see what happens...
-wider nose at nostrils (maybe half a nostril more on either side?)
-has crooked nose, looks like was punched from his right
-more squareness to jowls
-shorten his chin very slightly
-slight drop in the level of his right eye
- less fullness to lower lip
If you agree with any of these, try the changes and see what happens...
Dan Morton
A Fixture
The likeness is definitely much closer! Interesting discussion about digital sculpting - for me, particularly the bit about digital scanning and printing vs. digital sculpting. If you know a bit about digital scanning, could you explain that process a little? What equipment is used to scan the original?
All the best,
Dan
All the best,
Dan
pokrad
A Fixture
There is more than one way to digitally scan the object. At lest two that I know of:
1. The most accurate is modern digital scanner. It actually sends the signal and measures the distance from the "standing point" to the first surface - signal is reflected from the surface and depending on time of the return of the signal distance is calculated.
Now if You have 1000 of such signals that are reflecting from another part of the subject surface, You have matrix of points in 3D space. Such matrix can be converted to the 3D object by "connecting" those points. The resolution depends on how much points You have stored and how good Your "measurement instrument" is precise. This is very simplified version of the process...
Such digitally scanned object is almost never good enough for production and still require a significant cleanup (that must be done by human). Scanners are getting better so fast, and You can check how good they can be by visiting this link for example:
http://3ddigitaldoubles.com/
My knowledge about this way of scanning is only theoretical from the obvious reasons - scanners are not cheap
2. The second way is "restoring" points in space from digital photo. The process requires that You make about 10-15 images of the object from the different angles but with same camera settings. Mathematical process (software) that follows use some of the data stored in image (EXIF properties) and the data(pixels) from the images itself and tries to calculate those points. I tried that and got very rough results. It can be usable but it requires significant time to fix the "scans". Since this was not so interesting to me, I never tried to improve (by taking better images at better light or use better camera, or getting better-non free software), so for me the results were really bad.
Again, my knowledge about the process is very shallow...I saw here on PF some figures that are done that way, so I'm sure there are guys who can explain it better
EDIT: I see now on the 3ddigitaldoubles that they are using both scanners and photos, so I do not know which scan is done by which method, but You can see that results are fantastic...
1. The most accurate is modern digital scanner. It actually sends the signal and measures the distance from the "standing point" to the first surface - signal is reflected from the surface and depending on time of the return of the signal distance is calculated.
Now if You have 1000 of such signals that are reflecting from another part of the subject surface, You have matrix of points in 3D space. Such matrix can be converted to the 3D object by "connecting" those points. The resolution depends on how much points You have stored and how good Your "measurement instrument" is precise. This is very simplified version of the process...
Such digitally scanned object is almost never good enough for production and still require a significant cleanup (that must be done by human). Scanners are getting better so fast, and You can check how good they can be by visiting this link for example:
http://3ddigitaldoubles.com/
My knowledge about this way of scanning is only theoretical from the obvious reasons - scanners are not cheap
2. The second way is "restoring" points in space from digital photo. The process requires that You make about 10-15 images of the object from the different angles but with same camera settings. Mathematical process (software) that follows use some of the data stored in image (EXIF properties) and the data(pixels) from the images itself and tries to calculate those points. I tried that and got very rough results. It can be usable but it requires significant time to fix the "scans". Since this was not so interesting to me, I never tried to improve (by taking better images at better light or use better camera, or getting better-non free software), so for me the results were really bad.
Again, my knowledge about the process is very shallow...I saw here on PF some figures that are done that way, so I'm sure there are guys who can explain it better
EDIT: I see now on the 3ddigitaldoubles that they are using both scanners and photos, so I do not know which scan is done by which method, but You can see that results are fantastic...
pokrad
A Fixture
Quick test, break the symmetry, and added some texturing.
I'm still not satisfied with the base form, so this was just a practice to make pores and wrinkles:
I'm still not satisfied with the base form, so this was just a practice to make pores and wrinkles:
Dekiman
A Fixture
Sve je bolje i bolje .
Stvarno je uzivanje pratiti tvoj rad .
Narocito sto dosta naucim citajuci tvoje postove.
Pozdrav
Stvarno je uzivanje pratiti tvoj rad .
Narocito sto dosta naucim citajuci tvoje postove.
Pozdrav
pokrad
A Fixture
Hvala
pokrad
A Fixture
To rest a bit from likeness, I started layering the clothes:
pokrad
A Fixture
Lack of time to sculpt, but pushing forward whenever possible...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Spanish Civil War, Lieutenant colonel qualified during the Battle of Teruel, 1938.- Latest: santi fernandez
-
-
-
Panzer officer of (Adolf Hitler) Regiment Ardennes Royal Models 1/16 scale- Latest: santi fernandez
-
