Shudu and Daz Studio featured on PBS
3Diva
Posts: 11,741
in The Commons
I'm not sure if anyone has posted about this - I only discovered it today, but PBS posted it a few days ago. It was really cool to see Daz Studio make a cameo in this PBS program. Congratulations to Cameron-James Wilson and his model Shudu for getting featured in the segment!
(The part featuring Cameron-James and Shudu starts at 15:46):
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Thanks for posting. Hardly look at lotsa things due to time limits. But am happy to hear that DAZ had a cameo with PBS. Title of "Future of Work" is interesting for sure. Anyway, just wanted to say quick thanks for heads up.
...the segment begins at aboiut the 16:00 mark.
I'm sorry, but anybody who was fooled into thinking that Shudu is a real person needs to go visit an eye doctor, stat.
I know, right. But maybe it's only because we're used to seeing fake people so we know what to look for?
Cool video, although a bit depressing and nice to see DAZ being used in it. I am thrilled they focused on the modeling aspect of Shudu and not the NFT crap
"I'm sorry, but anybody who was fooled into thinking that Shudu is a real person needs to go visit an eye doctor, stat. "
LOL, yeah I mean the renders are good, but...yeah.
I didn't know he used real models as the references for Shudu renders...which leads me to ask - why? We use 3D figures either because we don't have models or because we need to put them into fantastic environments or make them look unlike normal humans. Why would you hire real models, then replace them with a 3D figure that not only doesn't look as real, but has less expression and requires more time to postwork and polish the final images? Why use models at all if the end result is going to look 3D anyway? I never thought any images from Cameron to have photographic elements, I always figured they were pure 3D renders.
They charge the client for all the work involved and get to pocket most of it rather than have to fork over a large percentage to the 'talent' - probably still costs the client less, no dealing with the logisitics of gathering director/photographer/models/makeup, more easily integrate with other 3D assets (see Samsung spot on their website). No bad hair days, no acne outbreaks, no fatigue. Probably most importantly - no temper tantrums on set.
As for realism - when did modelling represent real life anyway? :)
Glad I'm not the only one who thought this! I was like...wait...this seems...counterproductive? Like double the work for why?
But they did show in the video that they are using a real-life model. Then they overlay the renders onto the model. So basically the model is a pose and lighting reference. So as @SnowSultan asked...why not just go with the real-world model? It'd be one thing if they were getting complete realism, but in this case they're not. (Granted, I do appreciate that a black model is involved and being paid in the process.)
Cats got me up at 4 AM so I figured I'd respond to Frinkky, but Melissa said everything I was going to. That's what I don't get, 3D figures don't have bad hair days, acne, or an attitude, so why bother with a real model at all? If you already have a model and real-world lighting equipment and a set, then why bother with a 3D model? Animation and realism are certainly less trouble with a live person. :)
This! +
So nice to see 3diva around!
One of my daughters was a sucessful model, and it amused me how they would spend so much effort in doing the opposite of what most of us do, ie try for perfect symmetry, remove any blemish, hide any pores, make the skin look like smooth cream....
I think the answer as to why they are using 3d, is that the 3 d model will never age. She won't get a 'big head' and demand more money. she won't gain weight or develope muscles. She is entirely controllable, no weird twitter posts to babysit, no pose she won't take....
The images and posing I see with Shudu seem to be pretty basic. I'm surprised to hear a model is involved.
For those that have never seen a 3D model as such they don't know any better. We are used to looking at digital figures in render settings, so we are a lot more critical and aware. I was showing some coworkers the DAZ3D gallery and they thought many of them were real people until I explained the concept
Thanks, Diva
...a good point. As I've worked with 3D graphics for over a dozen years, I often see flaws in digital special effects used in films that the average audience member doesn't There have been times I'd be with a friend and watching a preview of some new upcoming summer blockbuster, quietly pointing out that the lighting, the shadows, the reflections, the AO, the explosions, etc just didn't blend well with the live action only to get looks from others sitting nearby.
I rarely bother going to the cinema anymore as digital effects have become so widely used in many different genre's today, besides Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and adventure films.
I think you're missing the point. Nobody is trying to fool anyone. Thanks to programs like MD, Clo3D, etc, fashion design is becoming increasingly virtualized, and digital models help provide digitial clothing a context for fashion buyers. They are a sales tool. Some of those models, like Shudu, look more glamourous than others. Shudu and Cameron's other models get a lot of attention, but they're not the norm.
As for models losing jobs, most models are not jet-setters, make very little money and are subject to poor working conditions, and would be better off doing something else that they won't age out of.
Source: 25 years in the needletrade
...I wish MD didn't go subscription and W10 only. I have a much older version that has long since been out of the update loop and has no where near the advanced features the current version does.
So much more intuitive than creating clothing in a trditional modeller.
Why hire a real human? They are annoying pains in the rear.
"Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. 'More human than human' is our motto."
My comment was a direct response to the model in the video saying that she thought Shudu was a real person when she first saw her (which I still have a hard time believing based on the pictures and animations I've seen, but that's beside the point...I'll agree that my eyes are more sensitive to it than most, like all of us who work with this stuff). I also remember that there was a big stink about Shudu because she wasn't initially presented as 3D and many people assumed she was real so she developed this giant fanbase and young girls were calling her an inspiration and looking up to her as someone they could be. Then it was a big letdown when the cat jumped out of the bag.
I have no issue with the concept of virtual models...provided they are presented as such. That inspiration should have been presented as "look kids, you can do this someday too...(provided you have enough money and startup capital to do so)."
Should all art then carry a disclaimer, so as not to potentially mislead teenagers? Should magicians be obliged to explain every trick? What about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
It's a bit of a stretched comparison (in my opinion), considering that in the case of Shudu there was no way for viewers to know she wasn't real until she'd already garnered a giant following. She even had celebrity fans. Parents couldn't tell their kids that Shudu wasn't real...like they could with Thor or Iron Man or Santa Claus...because they didn't know either. But, like I said, that's just my personal take. Good thing I'm not involved in the fashion industry, nor am I interested in virtual models...or real-world models for that matter. I just like doing my artstes.
Ah, unfortunately I can't watch the video in my country. Do they use a 'famous' (expensive) model or someone not so well known and thus cheaper? They may well be exploiting the gimmick factor - still charge an arm and a leg but without the talent overhead.
I'd argue taking numerous shots/footage of the same pose/motion would be a lot easier with mocap rather than rely on a lowly human to reliably repeat a pose or action again and again. Either you want the same scene under different lighting to produce some kind of effect or you might have the perfect pose from the real model but the stupid intern knocked a light over :)
I'll try to find a way to watch the video but it doesn't seem like they explain why they're doing it this way - my cynicism tells me it is just for the gimmick, otherwise we'd probably have seen competition pop up with better 3d models - there's plenty of character artists on artstation that produce work that requires a double-take to recognise it as not real.
Probably not a reason why they chose to do it this way, but perhaps it might be...
Quite a few times my (physical/real world/non-CGI) model making clients have commissioned me to do 3D stuff, either models or renders, personal or for their company because they've found out I do 3D stuff too... it's tapered off a lot, because of 3D printing which probably indirectly made more people aware of non-CAD modeling and that you can actually make photorealistically rendered images without being Industrial Light and Magic.
Quite a few times people who I've thought should absolutely know about this sort of thing, haven't... I've really wanted to say "Dude, how do you not know this... I find this troubling"... I get a guy who needs a pattern sculpted for a very limited number of cast metal hood ornaments, but like the owner of a design firm or a manufacturer of perfume bottles?
You should have stumbled across this at some point.
My take is these folks know CAD, or about CAD, but they don't really look too far beyond exactly what they need to know and that's where they draw the line... and CGI is like dark magic... like Jurassic Park or Star Wars level stuff and that's it... also they usually have very little knowledge about video games, so that reference is nonexistent too...
I can easily see someone like that bankrolling a project like that or that being geared towards that sort of mindset...
And yes, the aforementioned individuals usually are older than me or around my age, but I've dealt with professional people in their thirties that are clueless about CGI and completely blown away by simple stuff.
I'm not at all sure what it would take for the model Alexsandrah Gondora to feel threatened by technology, if this is not it. I would have thought that she simply must have been thinking "Why am I even here?" during the shoot.
I know plenty of people totally uninterested in CGI people no matter how realistic they make them, simply because they are not real people.
Their reaction tends to be negative upon learning it is CGI and they have been fooled.
The same people think I am exceedingly wierd, dislike CGI cartoons as well (are fine with illustrations and 2D animations) it just goes too far into the Uncanny valley for them I guess, one such person is my own brother and some people I used to work with, CGI effects and sets are OK for them but not people.
I dunno. I think the real model looks much better than the digital one. **shrug**
Me either.
There will come a point when all of those people are dead.
The day when one can no longer tell the difference is coming. Relatively soon, I think, based on the trajectory from Lara Croft back in the day to what is possible today with ever more accessible technology. It seems like Metahumans were an unbelievable technical marvel just a year ago, and now they're accessible to anyone. It's only going to accelerate.... that's technology.