Who is the beautiful girl used by Goldtassel in promo pics that looks like Felicity Jones?

AllenArt

mindsong said:

AllenArt said:

Here is the cameral focal distance in practice. The mm I used are at the bottom. Personally, I prefer the middle one (although I may have gone 95mm), because the features aren't as pulled toward the camera as the 65mm or pushed as flat as the 120mm (which I feel has gone too far the other direction). Of course, as in everything, all that is highly subjective. Some of you might not even see a difference, though I see a huge difference.

Laurie

I happen to have known the portrait/focal-length rule from a previous life, but that series you posted is suprisingly subtle to my eye, and very interesting.

I wonder how much of that kind of sensitivity (or lack of...) accounts for the 'uncanny valley' effect we all feel but can't exactly identify.

thanks for that post/comparison - fascinating.

--ms

It's most noticeable when the images are stacked on top of each other then turned off one by one. There really is a huge difference there that maybe you can't see as well when they are side by side.

Laurie

mindsong

AllenArt said:

mindsong said:

AllenArt said:

Here is the cameral focal distance in practice. The mm I used are at the bottom. Personally, I prefer the middle one (although I may have gone 95mm), because the features aren't as pulled toward the camera as the 65mm or pushed as flat as the 120mm (which I feel has gone too far the other direction). Of course, as in everything, all that is highly subjective. Some of you might not even see a difference, though I see a huge difference.

Laurie

I happen to have known the portrait/focal-length rule from a previous life, but that series you posted is suprisingly subtle to my eye, and very interesting.

I wonder how much of that kind of sensitivity (or lack of...) accounts for the 'uncanny valley' effect we all feel but can't exactly identify.

thanks for that post/comparison - fascinating.

--ms

It's most noticeable when the images are stacked on top of each other then turned off one by one. There really is a huge difference there that maybe you can't see as well when they are side by side.

Laurie

I would bet that masters of sub-surface effects are tapping into that same level of subtle-but-perceived 'correctness' (or exaggeration) that we 'sort of' notice as well.

neat stuff,

--ms

mindsong

To to original post and topic, My first 'must know who' on this character was from:

  https://www.daz3d.com/colors-for-cats-meow-hair

This one stopped me in my browsing tracks, and 'her' follow-on appearances have reliably done so again and again since them. (pretty sure it's the same figure... - amazing what hair style and color can do to a face)

It was from the repeated forum references to this character that I switched from thinking that beauty was primarily 'relative' to the viewer (culture/environment/exposure), to now thinking that there is more of an underlying ultimate 'beauty' standard (symmetry/proportion/blemishes) built into us as a collective. I could see a PHD thesis or two coming out of this single character mesh...

--ms

(eta: image and references)

AllenArt

Tried to make an animated GIF, works on computer, but not after uploading, so ignore this post.

Laurie

 

wiz

Richard Haseltine said:

Taoz said:

AllenArt said:

MOST of the time, odd looking faces are because the person that rendered them used a default camera and didn't change the camera settings for closeups. This distorts the final image causing foreshortening and stretching of features.

So how do you find the correct setting for a particular render?

Try a focal length around 100 or so

Better yet, don't.

It's not focal length, it's distance. Every living creature has a "fear circle", which is actually a set of distances: closest a male is comfortable with an unfamiliar male approaching, conversational distance between tribe members (who may still swat you, if there's reason), distance you'd approach your mate, distance you'd approach your offspring, etc.

For westerners, place the camera at about 6 feet for an intimate, friendly portrait, 8-10 feet for one that's approachable but a bit more formal, and 12-15 feet for a more "fashion model" look. Then tweak the focal length to frame your shot. The only time you go closer than 6 feet is when you want emotional intensity, mother to child, close combat, "in your face" confrontation, etc.

This holds for photography, CGI, sketching, etc.

For easterners, go 5, 7-10, 12-15.

wiz

mindsong said:

AllenArt said:

Here is the cameral focal distance in practice. The mm I used are at the bottom. Personally, I prefer the middle one (although I may have gone 95mm), because the features aren't as pulled toward the camera as the 65mm or pushed as flat as the 120mm (which I feel has gone too far the other direction). Of course, as in everything, all that is highly subjective. Some of you might not even see a difference, though I see a huge difference.

Laurie

I was aware of the portrait/focal-length effect from a previous life, but that series you posted is suprisingly subtle to my eye, and very interesting.

I wonder how much of that kind of sensitivity (or lack of...) accounts for the 'uncanny valley' effect we all feel but can't exactly identify.

It accounts for an entirely different feeling of "wrongness". This is something photographers, painters, etc. have been dealing with for centuries. We are remarkably good at analyzing perspective. It's little things, like the ratio of apparent ear size to eye size to nose size, or the apex angle from nose to ears. "Big noses" and small, outward turned ears mean we're very close, and if it's not something we want to be very close to, it's alarming.

mindsong

wiz said:

mindsong said:

AllenArt said:

Here is the cameral focal distance in practice. The mm I used are at the bottom. Personally, I prefer the middle one (although I may have gone 95mm), because the features aren't as pulled toward the camera as the 65mm or pushed as flat as the 120mm (which I feel has gone too far the other direction). Of course, as in everything, all that is highly subjective. Some of you might not even see a difference, though I see a huge difference.

Laurie

I was aware of the portrait/focal-length effect from a previous life, but that series you posted is suprisingly subtle to my eye, and very interesting.

I wonder how much of that kind of sensitivity (or lack of...) accounts for the 'uncanny valley' effect we all feel but can't exactly identify.

It accounts for an entirely different feeling of "wrongness". This is something photographers, painters, etc. have been dealing with for centuries. We are remarkably good at analyzing perspective. It's little things, like the ratio of apparent ear size to eye size to nose size, or the apex angle from nose to ears. "Big noses" and small, outward turned ears mean we're very close, and if it's not something we want to be very close to, it's alarming.

Absolutely fascinating.

And we probably don't really analyze this intentionally, as I imagine we can't afford to actually explicitly think about it.

wiz said:

...

and if it's not something we want to be very close to, it's alarming.

And if it *is* something we want to be close to... it's also probably alarming, but in a very different way.

I've always cropped 'close-up' to good effect, but based on a very different theory. You've just updated one of my life-lenses... thanks.

--ms

wiz

You're welcome.

Richard Haseltine

wiz said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Taoz said:

AllenArt said:

MOST of the time, odd looking faces are because the person that rendered them used a default camera and didn't change the camera settings for closeups. This distorts the final image causing foreshortening and stretching of features.

So how do you find the correct setting for a particular render?

Try a focal length around 100 or so

Better yet, don't.

It's not focal length, it's distance. Every living creature has a "fear circle", which is actually a set of distances: closest a male is comfortable with an unfamiliar male approaching, conversational distance between tribe members (who may still swat you, if there's reason), distance you'd approach your mate, distance you'd approach your offspring, etc.

For westerners, place the camera at about 6 feet for an intimate, friendly portrait, 8-10 feet for one that's approachable but a bit more formal, and 12-15 feet for a more "fashion model" look. Then tweak the focal length to frame your shot. The only time you go closer than 6 feet is when you want emotional intensity, mother to child, close combat, "in your face" confrontation, etc.

This holds for photography, CGI, sketching, etc.

For easterners, go 5, 7-10, 12-15.

That's certainyl oen approach, but if you are at a distance with a short focal length (which is th camera proeprty affecting zoom) then your image is going to need croppintg to lose the dead space around the head - using focal length zoms so you get the effect of distance without the broad field.

Rev2019

i think i can make her

give me a sec.. ;)

Felicity Jones has Green eyes btw 

FSMCDesigns

Wouldn't it be funny if the developer chimed in and said she was pure victoria 8 and it was all the lighting, LOL

Rev2019

FSMCDesigns said:

Wouldn't it be funny if the developer chimed in and said she was pure victoria 8 and it was all the lighting, LOL

it is Osuine as mention on the first page

but not quite with the default settings

i have a renderer coming up in a few min 

some changes are done but i think i can improve her.

outrider42

Here's my attempt at recreating her.

Blind Owl

outrider42 said:

Here's my attempt at recreating her.

That's pretty darn close! So when can we expect to see the product in the store? 

outrider42

Blind Owl said:

outrider42 said:

Here's my attempt at recreating her.

That's pretty darn close! So when can we expect to see the product in the store? 

Ha! Its a really simple formula, actually. I believe the artist also did some light texture work to get those cheeks so blushy. They probably did this by blending the Osuine translucency map into the main texture. The trans maps are extremely red in the cheeks while the main face texture is not.

Subtropic Pixel

Richard Haseltine said:

benniewoodell said:

Taoz said:

AllenArt said:

Citizen Kane said:

Wow, the search for Daz works better than Google one. Great.

In any case, I was also thinking of another thing: maybe it looks so attractive in the final render, but I wonder if the model is actually good. I won't mention the names of the authors and the products, but I've seen a lot of final renderings in the store and the models used for these picturees, and you know what? I didn't believe it was possible that such horrible models would look so good in rendering. I mean... I don't know if it's a fad or something, but now all the female models seem to have a flat face as if a press had passed over it. The forehead protrudes outwards, the nose towards the inside. Sometimes they have their heads completely deformed, as if they were taken with hammer blows on their heads and so on. So in the end I started thinking that it was foolish to buy third-party characters and then find out that they appeared, but not really, to be decent with textures and final rendering. So, I wonder if this model too is or not the result of good rendering and textures.

MOST of the time, odd looking faces are because the person that rendered them used a default camera and didn't change the camera settings for closeups. This distorts the final image causing foreshortening and stretching of features.

So how do you find the correct setting for a particular render?

When I shoot films, on close ups I use a focal length generally at 75mm, if I want a lot of DOF I'll go up to 120 or even 150mm, but most of the time I use 75 for close up shots. I'll stick to a lower lens around 20 or so when I need a nice wide shot, or like with the show I'm doing now we're in this small room most of the time so most of the shots I'm using a 14mm lens otherwise I can't get a shot of the whole scene lol. The thing I love about Daz is how close to being on a real set it is in regards to setting up the camera and lights for Iray, so head to Barnes and Nobles or the library and pick up a photography or filmmaking book and you'll learn so much that you can utilize in your art here in Daz! 

Is that with a full-frame camera or a cropped frame? The latter have an effectively higher focal-length as they are using only the iner area, for my camera the multiplier is supposedly 1.6.

This, definitely this  ^

Always be aware of your frame size.  In the old 35mm film days, a 50mm lens was generally considered to have a field of view about equal to our eyes, neither pushing out nor pulling in the image.

But with today's cameras with smaller sensors (smaller than the 35 mm film negative size, that is), everything changes. 

Here's a decent article on the subject:  https://photographylife.com/equivalent-focal-length-and-field-of-view

 

outrider42

BTW, all I did was turn down Osuine a bit to 60-70%. I then added a small amount of Victoria 8, 25%. It is pretty clear to me that the girl has some kind of HD shape in the promos, so I added Victoria 8 HD, 100%. 

The texture is straight up Osuine. The 2nd pic I added more red to her cheek by blending in the SSS texture in that area. I used Osuine blue eyes, and I turned down the white level on the sclera because it is too bright otherwise.

And that is it. I think its pretty close. It is possible the artist is using a different DO as the secondary shape. I am pretty confident it is a Daz DO, because of the HD morph. Though I suppose it could be a PA's HD shape. It must be someone who can balance Osuine's face.

Zokreb

Thanks @Outrider42 for sharing your "recipe", you clearly got very (very) close. I was struggling with the wide nosebridge in comparison to straight Osuine morph.

Definately agree with you about the hd morphs part, especially the side eyes wrinkles and neck folds !

For the eyes texture, you can also have a try on blue eyes materials from any Emmaandjordi G8F character, you will get fine details in the sclera veins.

Edit : here is an attempt of mine :

wolf359

@Zokreb IMHO you have actually stumbled onto a decent likeness of Ryan Goslings  holographic  Girlfriend
from BladeRunner 2049.

 

Zokreb

Lol, never thought about it, but i can see why you would say that :)

northerain

Zokreb said:

Thanks @Outrider42 for sharing your "recipe", you clearly got very (very) close. I was struggling with the wide nosebridge in comparison to straight Osuine morph.

Definately agree with you about the hd morphs part, especially the side eyes wrinkles and neck folds !

For the eyes texture, you can also have a try on blue eyes materials from any Emmaandjordi G8F character, you will get fine details in the sclera veins.

Edit : here is an attempt of mine :

That looks even closer!

SixDs

Well, this is a somewhat disappointing development from a personal perspective.

Previously, just for "fun", I attempted to recreate this character from scratch, first starting out with a base G8F. After much trial-and-error and painstaking morph sliding, I ended up with a rather nice character that, unfortunately, did not really bear any credible resemblance to the target. Okay then, I says, plan B. I start with Osuine herself and once again proceed to play with morph sliders. This time, after a great deal of trial-and-error once again, I do succeed in creating a sort of, somewhat close facsimile, but still not completely convincing. I suppose that I should console myself by saying that I gained all of that valuable experience in character creation using morph sliders, rather than "Note to self: Keep It Simple, Stupid!".

Anyway, well done, outrider. I think that is about as close as anyone needs to get, without becoming obsessive.

Gogger

outrider42 said:

BTW, all I did was turn down Osuine a bit to 60-70%. I then added a small amount of Victoria 8, 25%. It is pretty clear to me that the girl has some kind of HD shape in the promos, so I added Victoria 8 HD, 100%. 

The texture is straight up Osuine. The 2nd pic I added more red to her cheek by blending in the SSS texture in that area. I used Osuine blue eyes, and I turned down the white level on the sclera because it is too bright otherwise.

And that is it. I think its pretty close. It is possible the artist is using a different DO as the secondary shape. I am pretty confident it is a Daz DO, because of the HD morph. Though I suppose it could be a PA's HD shape. It must be someone who can balance Osuine's face.

THANK YOU outrider42! Nailed it!

ArgleSW

SixDs

That's pretty impressive, too, arglesw007. I think that one important thing that this illustrates, is how important the texture set is to creating a credible clone, not just in this case, but every case. Of course, the people behind Facegen and Headshop certainly know this.

ColinFrench

Odaa said:

Best "Where can I find Goldtassel promo character?" thread ever.

And it's even better now that we have a friendly competition going on to find the magic formula. A good learning exercise.

By the way, I think we need a name for this character other than "Ms. Hair Promo". She's become too popular to remain anonymous! Suggestions?

Misselthwaite

Calliope - one of the Muses :-)

Havos

Since it is Goldentassel's promo girl, then maybe Goldie or even Goldilocks

Kevin Sanderson

wolf359 said:

@Zokreb IMHO you have actually stumbled onto a decent likeness of Ryan Goslings  holographic  Girlfriend
from BladeRunner 2049.

 

I loved Ana de Armas in that film!!

SixDs

Or just Tassel. We could add an E and make it seem French: Tassele. Tass, for short.