http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/inside-out/disney-pixar-characters-same-face/http://www.avclub.com/article/every-female-face-recent-disney-and-pixar-movies-l-216498...thanks to 3D "artists".
I warned you about this years agobut you didn't listenbecause I wasn't an animation expert.Then they came for animation experts."Edge flow" was more important for youthan art.
The modern beauty.
Because cheekbones have never existed.
The faces look nothing alike...
>>511099Eh... for someone reared on a diet of anime, that's probably true.
Life imitates art... crippled 3D art...
Eyebrows imitate Pixar animation.
What is "defined jawline"?What are "defined cheekbones"?
We call it "bad edge flow".
This is why I hate talking to normies about 3d. Poor fuckers who did these probably wept over every polygon.
>>511112They can't see the forest for the trees.
Can you believe it!? Disney has a noticeable styleguide! Despite most of these movies being a good watch, they're still marketed to young children.
>>511093I think it must be something to do with developing commercialism in art, similar to what happened in Japan. The big creators of cartoons figured out an aesthetic that maximize appeal to audiences, which they now continually reproduce. These "Pixar faces" are Western anime.
>>511120>>511124It's not "style". It's an inevitable byproduct of "the correct" topology, desperately disguised as "style". You literally can't model chiseled physiognomies on the topology promoted by animation gurus as "correct" until you go high-poly.
>>511129 continued>>511124The audience always likes what it is told it must like. Very few people possess innate sense of beauty, everyone else follows the herd. The Pixar face is computationally cheap, it's a Coca-Cola drink and a McDonald's burger of animation, that's why it's suddenly "all the rage". Because it's a lucrative sell. For no other reason.
>>511134 continuedThey market weakness of technology as strength.They signal: "It's not a bug, it's feature."And impressionable sheep simply believe.
>>511093Its this condition that they have at Disney / Pixar where they can have lots of females in the film but GOD FORBID NO UGLIES and GOD FORBID NOBODY WITH ANY KIND OF GENETIC DISABILITY
>>511140Is this why all Pixar women are ugly?As opposed to classic Disney.
>>511144they're not ugly. I see real ugly every day where I work among the plebs
>>511093Those faces aren't even fucking alike are you kidding meRapunzel and that girl from Big 6 maybe, but everyone else has different proportions and silhouette value from each other>draws silhouette of face and nose>further accentuates how each of them are ridiculously different to each other, even going so far as to make the one pair that actually looks similar look entirely unique>the only similarities are that they're face silhouettes and a nose, and that's literally it>>511129>You literally can't model chiseled physiognomies on the topology> It's an inevitable byproduct of "the correct" topologyAre you seriously implying the fucking model follows the topology, not the other way around?I hope it's bannable offense to be so wrong it's considered trolling,Like it isn't even my opinion, what you're saying is just straight up incorrect and just shows you're another /b/tard lost onto /3/
>>511140Why would they add ugly unattractive shit to their movies ? And why would they inlcude any genetic disability people like it's supposed to be a normal thing. Kids are going to watch these for fucks sake.
its because they have proprietary plugins that when they do a sculpt of the face, they just give it the same topology as all of their other models so the rigs and animation can be transferred easily.also because disney finds the younger looking face more attractive and cute, and if its not broke dont fix it. even though i dont really agree with how they are all the same
>>511108what the fuck are you on about?
>>511154>I hope it's bannable offense to be so wrong it's considered trolling,If only.
I miss when Dreamworks did more realistic humans. For some reason, they were actually more comedic and even more attractive that way.Fiona is the best 3D princess.
>>511177God this looks so much better than the moon-faced moon-eyed downers they currently make.
They look like b00bs
4chan was died.
>>511099this, come on
>>511177It's shit. Why should kids cartoons aim for realistic looking humans ? It takes away from the quirkiness and style of the characters. Thank Christ Pixar has more sense than most of the retards on this board.
>>511206Anything that classifies itself as a "kids cartoon" is a pile of tripe by default. Shrek was a fine movie for all ages, and the realistic human figures, if anything, ADDED to the quirkiness of all the characters.
>>511207This is what I'm talking about. Seems like there are a lot of left brainers that into 3D for the technical complexity of it, but they just can't into art. Technically correct does not necessarily good art make.
>>511212It's not about technical complexity to me at all. I don't care that the characters are anatomically correct, but that they have appeal. Bug eyed pinch noses from a Pixar assembly line are not appealing.
>>511219...what do you find appealing, fag?
>>511220Me personally? I would ditch human characters entirely if I were to have it my way.So fuck yeah, Zootopia.
>>511222so...? you got nuthin then?
>>511093I think those forms are a result of testing and resource on children's perception and awareness. I doubt that large corporations like Disney would just rely on the artskills of some experienced artists alone. They have to make tests because they want the movies to be most efficient.Also Uncanny Valley. The more natural a face looks the higher the risk of displeasing the viewer. That's why the forms are cartoonish. (btw not only the look but also the movements of those characters is 'cartoonish')Aand... Children see things with different eyes. They neither see nor care about any sexual appeal of a character. Their sexual awareness aparatus in the brain is not (fully) developed yet, this happens not before puberty.Researchers have shown this picture to children and all they could see were dolphins in a bottle.
>>511231>I think those forms are a result of testing and resource on children's perception and awareness. I doubt that large corporations like Disney would just rely on the artskills of some experienced artists alone. They have to make tests because they want the movies to be most efficient.Even the movies that built the Disney empire (pinocchio, snow white, etc) had much more variation. Imagine if the characters had the current style then, how many HEADS would roll. Now we're in deep in some feminism wave
There is way to much /pol/ in here, sigh
>>511234no shitposting, fag
>>511233> Now we're in deep in some feminism waveIt's the feminists fault that your taste in cartoons isn't being satisfied? If masturbatable cartoons is your thing anon perhaps you should look beyond Disney for source material, just saying. I'm surprised you even identify as a man with balls if this is the scope of your oppression tho.I remember Disney when they did anthropomorphic animals like it was totally cool and nobody had even fucking heard about a furry.If you wanna blame someone for Disney dishing out this humanoid doll BS blame the zoophiliac furry crowd.They totally destroyed Donald Duck by associating him with the Donald fuck.
>>511233/pol/ here, you're searching for a calf under the ox, ie. something that isn't there. Maybe modern-day animations brought unneeded "diversity" in order to fullfill their [current year] pc audience. Heroines and female main characters have always been present in children's tales, since children's tales have existed.Examples: The Little Match Girl, Cinderella, Alice in wonderland, Snow white, etc. Maybe another great example would be Sheherezada, a tale from the muslim world, a pretty old one at that.The "progressive" part of the new children's movies would be seeing an african in a medieval European setting, not a female character or heroine. The "current style" you're referring to is nothing more than market research through focus groups. Watch redlettermedia's Mr. Plinkett review of Avatar and you'll find out why. Cute looking creatures bring muh feels in people, solidifying the connection between the viewer and characters, inducing the note that the character is good-hearted. A kitty or a puppy can't be bad, can it? Pic related, how your brain functions.
I was ready to post this earlier but >>511190 happened.>>511146>Pixar women are not really ugly.Okay, Pixar women are cosmetically flawless if that's what you mean. But, in some sense, nobody is ugly, people are only unhealthy. I find most young real women more pretty than Pixar women. If a fantasy woman is less attractive than the average woman, I think I'm justified to call her ugly, especially with the freedom of fantasy characters to look anything.>>511177A step in the right direction. Relevant: >>509155>>511183>moon-facedThank you! Your description hits the nail.>>511166>Why would they add ugly unattractive shit to their movies ? And why would they include any genetic disability people like it's supposed to be a normal thing.Because illness _is_ normal. And because even in illness there can be beauty, strength and dignity. An example straight from this board: >>509055.>Kids are going to watch these for fucks sake.Yes, including disabled kids, and friends of these kids. They need role models too.>>511170Those eyebrows obey Disney's animation principles.>>511154>Those faces aren't even fucking alike are you kidding meThat's what Koreans say. Are you Korean? GIF related.>Are you seriously implying the fucking model follows the topology, not the other way around?No, you. You demanded me to think that. When I wanted your help with modelling angular, featuresome faces, /3/ was like "No, you can't do this! Go high-poly if you want features. Go Zbrush. You won't get job at Pixar."
Every eyebrow is an edgy cocked eyebrow. No exceptions
>>511233>Now we're in deep in some feminism waveSome sickness is definitely going on but I wouldn't leap into blaming feminism. For example, can you blame feminism for a similar sickness that's consuming Far East and culminating in anime and Miss Korea contest? Oddly, that's men's choice. A plague of low testosterone in both men and women, maybe?Likewise you can't blame feminism for ridiculous Barbie and even more ridiculous Bratz. Both men and women enjoy this shit.>>511252There's no reason for every animation to be soft porn but also there's nothing wrong when it happens, because art needs not shy away from beauty and children need good role models. In particular, there's no fair reason why fantasy women should be artificially manipulated to be LESS fappable than real women. It may make mums and dads feel comfy but it cheats their children.
>>511231Yes, uncanny valley mitigation strategy is one possible explanation for those 3D freaks.Fair point about prepubescent children. I'm wondering whether they actually are the target audience for Pixar.>>511254>Cute looking creatures in AvatarSuch as Korra? I wouldn't compare her with modern 3D abominations. I have used anime as an example of wrong in a post above but that was slightly unfair because Korra is one example of good in anime. Yes, she is cute but not in a chubby, asexual way. I find it easy to fall in love with Korra both as an adult and a preteen viewer.
>>511262To be fair, that's Jack Black's default expression, so that ends up in the animator's reference videos quite a bit
>>511093and yet the image showing all those faces next to each other shows how they're clearly not all the same and there a quite a few notably unique faces in there.how can you possibly believe Sadness's face looks like violet's?
>>511252> Blaming furries for Disney going with unappealing human charactersWhat the fuck? There is porn of absolutely everything, anthropomorphic characters are no exception, and the furry fandom, even the pornographic side, hardly, if at all, overlaps with zoophilia/bestiality.Also, ironically, Disney is now releasing a full movie with animal characters only.
>>511177BTW this was a revision from the original Fiona design which was much more photorealistic. The studio has gone to great pains to suppress images of it so I can't show you examples, but in the end they realized a character as cartoony as Shrek with an equally cartoony Farquaad would look completely out of place with 100% photorealistic 'normal' humans.
>>511231>Researchers have shown this picture to children and all they could see were dolphins in a bottleAnd if those children were French, the fact that it SAYS 'dolphins' in the picture doesn't hurt any.Not disputing your point but the artist stacked the deck in their favor here.
>>511262>Every eyebrow is an edgy cocked eyebrow. No exceptionsThe animation classroom that most DW and Px and even Sony 3D artists came out of had a cardinal rule that facial symmetry = uncanny valley, which is why we always get that fucking smugface in these pictures. It's the easiest expression to set up that's asymmetrical. Lift an eyebrow, drop the other one, shit-eating grin tilted towards the dropped brow.Plus, it sells 'edgy' which promises the viewer THIS CHARACTER IS ABOUT TO BREAK *ALL* THE RULES, BET YOU CAN'T WAIT TO SEE!!
>>511093Learn to distinguish the subtleties.
>>512031I think they nailed it with the final design. I generally hate humans in animation, but Shrek made them perfectly quirky without distorting the shit out of their proportions.
>>511140genetic disabilities should not be glamorized
>>511093Here's a paintover by someone without toes for fingers.If you're mad they're all generally human shaped, yeah.You mad they don't remodel the same mesh from scratch for each character even though the age, gender, and target style are all very similar? Alright. Even realistic human faces, barring wide gaps in age, should have a very similar base mesh. Stay mad.
>>512579>Here's a paintover by someone without toes for fingers.
imagine being so riddled with aspergers that you thought these faces were the same.
Tumblr feminism strikes back and you fell for it. You idiots
>>512682I'm no feminist, I just fucking hate the look of 3D human characters in this era.
>>512684Because they're cute ? Which era of character style do you like ?
>>512685I don't think human 3D characters can be cute regardless (use anthros for cute).
>>512686>anthrosCan't be done anymore, no one could predict anthros would turn children into furries. But now that we know what happens it's like smoking all over again.Everyone thought it looked cool and showed great taste but then it turned out to be pure cancer and now you can no longer promote it.Hopefully the pattern do not repeat, because if it does the kids watching contemporary disney will wanna fuck really weird looking children when they grow up.
>>512687You'd be blowing furries way out of proportion. The worst case scenario is that it inspires a harmless fetish, but that blow is worth it for doing what simply works perfectly for animated movies and TV series. If a small minority faps to it, so be it.
>>511257>Yes, including disabled kids, and friends of these kids. They need role models too.I'm disabled. I can relate to a character that can speak coherently in the same way a person with green eyes can relate to a person with blue eyes.
>>512031>>512112I really like shrek's uncanny people as well, it fits the tone and humor of the movie really well
RAPUNZEL A CUTEST
>>511093I'm not following. should they do squares and triangles? what are you even doing here, showing us that every face has chin and nose? of course they have, they are people afterall (i'm no sure what the blue, yellow and green blob is tho)buy some glasses man
>>513398>Drunk Big Bird’s rants about the government’s lies.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28861625>The South Korean government's long-term project to influence foreign affairs through K-pop and dance moves with military precision>started in the late 1990s.Recant your insults now.Will you?The irony here is magnified even further by the fact that I have never mentioned the government in this thread; it was your own hard projection. Reality has surpassed my suspicions.
>>512687>Hopefully the pattern do not repeat, because if it does the kids watching contemporary disney will wanna fuck really weird looking children when they grow up.Too late, they do that already.
>>512635The first face is the only pretty and interesting one in that collection.>not being able to imagine any face outside Pixar’s template>not even seeing a templateWhat’s the name for that mental illness?>>512579Nice angles. Except most of them aren’t real.>If you're mad they're all generally human shaped, yeah.In real life, only some people look like potatoes.But in 3D animation, they all do.>You mad they don't remodel the same mesh from scratch for each character?I don’t claim that every face needs a different base mesh. But the existing template doesn’t accommodate the full spectrum of beauty. It throws away most spectacular faces and it gets away with it just because 60% of people don’t register them when they see them. (They are not part of their “beauty alphabet”.)>>513398>>512685Interesting faces have angular features. Pic related. Those features are universal and sparse enough to warrant a representation in the common head mesh.If you look into Western comix, you literally can’t find a superhero without them. All those features have been lost in modern animation like tears in rain.
>>513416>If you look into Western comix, you literally can’t find a superhero without them.>All those features have been lost in modern animation like tears in rain.
>>513416> Interesting faces have angular features> you literally can’t find a superhero without themWe're not talking about interesting faces or superheroes what the fuck are you talking about ? They are supposed to be cute and have toddler-like features to appeal to a younger audience. They are not supposed to look like Johnny Depp or have angular faces at all.
>>513422>We're not talking about interesting faces or superheroes what the fuck are you talking about ?So 3D animation is only for connoisseurs of toddlers??? LOL. I see.
>>513423> 3d animationWe're talking about pixar movies that made for the younger audience, hence the OP image. What thread are you replying to ?
Is it just me or do they look like the grown up versions of each other ?
>>513424Are Blender demo productions only for toddlers too?Because their characters look no different from Pixar’s.
>>513427No this thread is about that. You were supposed to explain why the pixar characters in OPs post are not attractive to you, not why every other 3D animation character didn't.
>>513429The reason that this thread is about Pixar is because Pixar is the most prominent and glorified example (representative) of the disease that is consuming the WHOLE industry.Even if this thread was really only about Pixar, there’s no reason to pretend it’s an isolated case just because you want to.
>>513430but they look cute mane. and they should look cute. I can't imagine any of the characters in OPs post that would look appealing with sharp facial features and a triangle face.
>>513429>>513430 continuedAlso, a look at the whole industry disproves your toddler theory of the Pixar face. That’s another good reason to talk broader than the immediate topic.
>>513432I can’t deny this.It’s as if 3D in its present state of development does cute (toothless really) because cute is the only thing it can do well.
>>513435 continuedActually I can imagine cute that doesn’t look like potato. But that’s beside the point.
>>513436Show me an example of what you consider cute that doesn't look like pixar
>>513438 continuedKorra’s face is vaguely angular. (Vaguely, because it’s simple 2D art.)This is beside the point because 3D animation shouldn’t be good only for cute face.
>>513440Angular... and cute.
It’s vague enough in 2D that you may argue whether her face is really angular, but definitely not moon-faced or like potato.
>>513441she's not nearly as cute as OPs character. she's not even meant to be cute.
Even if Pixar productions were primarily for toddlers, I don’t think every toddler is attracted to potato-ness. I know that I wasn’t.Just because you are a potato, doesn’t mean that you LIKE it.
>>513446I think you conflate potato with cute.
>>513446Can you show me anything you consider cute that’s not baby cute?
>>513449 continuedAnyway, that’s beside the point. The point is that the Pixar toddler head is now ubiquitous in 3D, and is pushed by teachers of 3D as “correct topology”, despite being inadequate for representing the full range of adult human faces.Nobody has attempted to account for those angles in the base mesh.
>>513426Yeah, slightly. Not perfectly.Why your arrows multicolour?
>>513452first I made them white but they were getting lost over other white backgrounds, then I added black outline but then I said fuck it and added the red for eXXXXXXtra swagger
>>513448I think you're calling cute things potato.
>>513426Damn dude, fucking sweet arrows.
>>511252Looks like someone forgot that Tijuana Bibles were a thing. You forgot one key feature about humans: People don't change. They're all still fucked up. Every.Single.One. And that's the beauty of humanity, in my opinion. We're all fucked up! Huzzah.
Why are people mad it's not like any of you guys understand art anyways. Just because you can see patterns don't mean your smart or has any meaning
>>513438>>513439>>513440>>513441>>513444>animu shit>not even animu shit, weeaboo shit>not even weeaboo shit, whorra shit>cuteGet out. Reeeeee.
>>513948>Not reading past the first lineSince I know you aren't going to read this part, I can just call you a cocksucker move on, I suppose..
>>513956But he is right, it’s a western.
>>511109>what is looks like a drug addled whore.
Do you guys think the disney and pixar people runs side projects where they animate pornographic scenes of their characters and keep it in their vault or is it just me ?
>>514522>looks like a drug addled whoreBetter?
>>514524no because i havent seen one of any substantial quality
>>511093Holy shit 90% of these are ugly as fuck or barbie
>>511112>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/inside-out/disney-pixar-characters-same-face/Same with astronomy. But why do you call them "normies"? Do you consider yourself not normal because you know 3d? You think a construction worker would call you normie because you don't know shit about concrete?I don't see OP's problem. There's a lot of concept behind these faces.
>>511183define "better". Better in meaning you like it better? That's irrelevant.
>>514524>>515355such semen demons...
>>515934>Better in meaning you like it better? That's irrelevant.I shouldn’t be posting pretty women because beauty is indeed irrelevant to the topic at hand.However, anon equated angular/chiseled female face with the haggard “heroin look”. Even if he was right, it’s a stupid argument because such faces need to be represented in art too. But I took up the challenge nonetheless.>define "better".“Healthy enough?”>>515937True though.
>>516130>haggard “heroin look”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin_chic>Heroin chic was a look popularized in mid-1990s fashion and characterized by pale skin, dark circles underneath the eyes and angular bone structure. The look, characterised by emaciated features and androgyny, was a reaction against the "healthy".
Pixar face is now real.Source: >>>/b/675682651 in >>>/b/675678173.
She posted:>I'm gonna watch cartoons all summer 1. Well, it definitely shows.2. Confirmed for Pixar head.
The mystery of Pixar face finally solved:>Athena’s owl can be more closely connected to her through its connections to Glaukopis. This is seen by the fact that it was called the Glaux (ϒλανξ). It has been pointed out by Leaf and Luyster that Glaukopis could also be translated as “owl-eyed.” As with Athena, the Glaux’s eyes were also seen as fatal as a statue of one on top of Athena was said to attract birds and then kill them.http://gazeinancientgreekreligion.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-glaukopis.html
>>518097She looks like something you'd find in a graveyard or a emo club. Doesn't really seem Pixar material.
>Athena Glaukopis (...) as "the owl-eyed girl">(...) as a young teenager with great big eyes ringed with kohl in imitation of or solidarity with Her owl.http://www.thaliatook.com/OGOD/glaukopis.html
>>518098Because Pixar doesn’t make morbid tales? Come on. As with other Pixar mind slaves, you focus on minute differences and you ignore the overarching sameness. You remind me of people who deny existence of crab-posting on >>>/n/ (because each crab story is unique) and accuse those who report it of psychosis. Obvious crab shill is obvious.The connecting trait in all Pixar characters is: owl-faced.Pixar Glaukopis.Pixar is owl-posting our children.
>>518102>as a young teenager with great big eyes ringed with kohl in imitation of or solidarity with Her owl.actually her iris' are smaller than average. Her overall eye is normal size.
>>518114And now you’ll argue that she has small eyes... Guess what? You’re right.The size of eyeballs (and certainly irises) is one the most constant parameters in human. In other words, everybody’s eyeball size is the same. It’s not the size, it’s the face shape really what makes the owl look. Her cheek fat is huge and her jaw is atrophic.
>Lauritic owls will never leave you; they will dwell in your home and nest in your purse, hatching out small change.With a TV set at your home playing cartoons, Aristophanes’s prophecy is certainly correct.
>>518117>And now you’ll argue that she has small eyes... Guess what? You’re right.Why are you writing like this? Are you in the fourth grade?
>>518120I’m not native English. People on the Internet don’t correct others’ language often enough and, as a result, my command of English does not progress.>And now you’ll argue that her eyes are small...Is this more correct?
>>518121>And now you’ll argue that her eyes are small...No, you skip that.>You’re right.>The size of eyeballs (and certainly irises) is one the most constant parameters in human. In other words, everybody’s eyeball size is the same. It’s not the size, it’s the face shape really what makes the owl look. Her cheek fat is huge and her jaw is atrophic.
>>518122>The correct English is to skip the part where you express initial indignation at my attempt to prove that her eyes are small.Seriously?
>>518126Nobody writes like that and nobody uses the word indignation
>>518113I don't even know what you mean by owl-faced or owl-eyed. She's got very slightly wider eyes with tons of makeup. She would look like shit with the eyebags and facial lines if she didnt have chemicals on her face. Cuz by ur definition, every face is owl-face :B
>>518132>nobody uses the word indignationM8 read a fucking book. Everybody uses the word indignation.
>>518182no they dont, only authors that have a thesaurus next to them at all time use it
>>511093Most hot/attractive women have sameface in real life.
>>511093I don't frequent /3/ very much... Is calling all 3D animation studios "Pixar" a thing or just Disney studios? Does this extend to Marvel? Because Colossus in Deadpool didn't look like any of these characters...
>>511093Are those red lines supposed to be bo0bs?
>>511257>No, you. You demanded me to think that. When I wanted your help with modelling angular, featuresome faces, /3/ was like "No, you can't do this! Go high-poly if you want features. Go Zbrush. You won't get job at Pixar."So submissive to /3/'s opinion you'd rather not even try, or even investigate further in your inquiry?They weren't wrong per se, for proper deformation the topology does need to follow a loop structure, but aesthetically, the mesh can be of any shapeIf your argument is >I WANT DEEP CHEEKBONES BUT TOPOLOGY WON'T LET METhen clearly, you're not a 3D artist because the topology allows that, completely, why the fuck not?If you want to topologize it differently to box model cheekbones better, go ahead, stop being suck a cuck and do it instead of shitpostingChances are though, you're going to into deformation problems further on during riggingAnd if you don't run into problem, then congratulations, you managed to do it without cucking yourself to the norm
>>518097http://www.exhibitinteriors.com.au/fornasetti-plate-6.html>FORNASETTI PLATE NO. 6>$295.00Resemblance: uncanny.
>>518228Fox owns deadpool you fucking retard.
>>518098>She looks like something you'd find in a graveyard or a emo club.>Doesn't really seem Pixar material.
>Faces I’d like to see in untextured low-poly and... recognise>but /3/ won’t let me>because “deformation problems”.>Stylistic schemes of female face in traditional comix.
>Faces I’d like to see in untextured low-poly and... recognise>but /3/ won’t let me>because “deformation problems”.>Stylistic schemes of female face in traditional comix.#2
Look: even Asians – usually aspiring to the gormless >>511102 / >>511257 look – are capable of pulling off the iconic American scheme of beauty.
>>518289>You'd rather not even try?No, you. I tried and I failed. (I succeeded partially.) You didn’t even try – you just dismissed me as a fool.Together, we could have made it. But you chose to make the opposite effort.>Clearly, you're not a 3D artist because the topology allows that, completely.Clearly, no one who is a 3D artist can pull it off.>The topology allows that, completely. Why the fuck not?I don’t know it and you don’t know it. The difference between you and me is that I’m not satisfied with our ignorance.>If you want to topologize it differently to box model cheekbones better, go ahead.You forget what an Internet forum is for. I’m unable to do it myself. Complexity of human face in 3D overwhelms me. The stylistic schemes used to draw human faces in classic 2D don’t translate to 3D easily. We need to translate them though, because those schemes are the visual language of human face. Not only there’s no art without language – there’s no truth without it.>Chances are though, you're going to into deformation problemsThat’s nothing compared to difficulties traditional sculptors face in animating marble sculpture. It’s so hard that, in fact, I have never seen a marble animation. They remain unemployed by Pixar. Yet they seem undeterred by it. Why?If big wigs of 3D are so determined to make things animated... they could always implement morphing of two entirely different topologies for key frames. Or they could use two separate topologies on the same object: one for morphing and another for shape. The morphing topology doesn’t even need to be a polygon mesh, just influence control points or diffusion splines. What’s stopping them? Their lack of creativity? Blind obedience to received algorithms? Treating established software like truth?>Stop being suck a cuck and do it instead of shitposting.Don’t call it “shitposting” – it’s the future you chose. Enjoy it.Print OP pic and hang it above your desk.
>>519033>Clearly, no one who is a 3D artist can pull it off.Literally anyone can do it, give me a sketch, I'll model it and show you how the topology works> I’m unable to do it myself. Complexity of human face in 3D overwhelms me.Of course it does>The morphing topology doesn’t even need to be a polygon mesh, just influence control points or diffusion splines. What’s stopping them?If shitposter anon of 3D is so determined to shitpost... they could always implement learning 3D before talking shit so he doesn't sound as stupid as he sounds. Or he could just take 2 minutes to google "displacement map", one for learning and another to realise how stupid he is. The googling doesn't even need to be an intricate 6 hour study, just google images of displacement maps and one article. What’s stopping him? His lack of intellect? Blind obedience to shitposting algorithms? Treating unestablished asspulls like truth?
>>519033>Clearly, no one who is a 3D artist can pull it off.Pic related;Right off the top of my head, you're just a whiny cunt who got butthurt because he was too stupid to learn 3D, turning to shitposting straight up wrong assumptions and contributing to no discussion at all, with the only response being>"BUT I TRIED AND I CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE AND IGNORED ALL ADVISE AND NOW THAT MEANS NO ONE CAN DO IT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE COUNTLESS CHISELED FACES ON ARTSTATION WITH DEFORMABLE TOPOLOGY AND AN ENTIRE MOVIES WITH SUCH ANGULAR AND STYLISTIC CHARACTER DESIGN IT'S JUST THAT /3/ LAUGHED AT ME AND I CAN'T TAKE THAT BECAUSE 4CHAN IS SO MEAN"Where the fuck are /3/'s janitors?
>>514524No because a) animating requires time and b) time is money.
>>519033>Clearly, no one who is a 3D artist can pull it off.You can fucking rig a car to have a fucking face, you can make fucking Phineas, a literal conehead, emotive, and you're saying you can't make chiseled faces? Look at Infinity's Venom, Maleficent, Thor, look at that fucking Yoda, their fucking GrootKill yourself retard
>>519054I'm sure those animators doing sleepovers don't mind a couple of extra hours to animate these characters for their own entertainment.But then again, they wouldn't be taking the risk if that animation leaks and causes a massive fuckup. It would eb the end of them
>>519064To be honest, I was thinking more along the lines of them rather doing work they're paid to do.And also didn't Disney fire a few people for improper behavior a year or two ago? That's a pretty big deterrent.
>New from Blender Guru: How to make a Pixar styled characterLOL, no, thanks.
>>519048>>519053>>519055>U are an imbecile>Where the fuck are /3/'s janitors?>Kill yourself retardDon’t talk to me or my son ever again.
Those elbows though.
The most chiselled face in Ratatouille... and look, they are cheating! It’s not a true depressed cheek – the illusion of concavity has been accomplished by makeup (painted texture).
>>519720ratatouille has shit 3d
The closest to what I seek.After many subdivisions, they are getting there (with great hardship).Just add cheekbones.Still, a low-poly illusion forced in high-poly.
Glorious cheekbones... except I can’t find a trace of them in the underlying topology.Remove two subdivision levels and... puff! Cheekbones gone.Not to mention that they aren’t anatomically correct.
The last one wasn’t Disney’s though.Here’s the original one.Still the same.Those sharp angles run counter topology’s edges rather than along them. They exist only in high-poly. And even then, they don’t maintain sharpness along their whole length.They are forced.
The bottom line: the 3D industry has been recruited to serve as a population control weapon by imprinting the developing minds of our children with toothless beauty patterns.
>>519730>Not to mention that they aren’t anatomically correct.This is really the most important thing to remember in character design.The Teachings of Anatomy dictate a very specific window of human designs which, if violated, break the Rules of Art and are of course trash.
So this thread is basically OP whining about how something can't be done, is then proven many times it can be done, then literally goes,>WELL YES, IT CAN BE DONE, BUT UH, WELL, THE RESULTS ARE THERE AND ALL, BUT, I GUESS, IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT BECAUSE I WANT TO DO THE EXACT THING HERE EXCEPT, WELL, MY WAY, WHICH I'M SURE IS THE RIGHT WAY WHICH NO ONE DOES, AND WHAT I'M PRETTY SURE YOU GUYS ARE RAPING ME TO MAKE SURE I DON'T DO IT, UGH FUCKING /3/ STOP OPPRESSING ME! LET ME DO WHAT I WANT! WHY CAN'T I DO IT WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL /3/! PAY ATTENTION TO MEE!!!!If you want to fuck up your facial topology, do it, literally no one is stopping you; go ahead and do it, instead of fucking shitposting on /3/ about how you can't because /3/ advised you not to and you want to be retardedIt's time to be a big boy and make a choice, shitpost, or do itEveryone else, just report and hide
>>511111 quints: checked √>>520000 quads: checked √>>513444 dubs: checked √>>511222 dubs: checked √
>>511105>>517109>Life imitates art... crippled 3D art...>Pixar face is now real.https://YouTu.be/FnMcoaQA4oY>And last but not least, faced you. Listen. I'm guilty of tuning a little bit – once in a while, I found I had an ugly day – well, just detail my eyes, so you look at those and not on the rest of my face.>But I follow some people who don't know when to stop: “Hmmm... okay. I kinda wanna look like a mix between a precious moment all and a Terminator. Let me just smooooooooth, detail–detail–detail–detail, smooooooooth... aaaaand... eeeenlarge!”>Only Pixar characters look good as Pixar characters. Stop trying to make yourself look like that bitch from “Frozen”! ‘Cause you know what you could end up to look like? Uh, there you go, have a motherfucker from “Big Hero 6”!>Trust me: I follow a lot of people who look like this, and a lot of people who look like Shrek – and that would be me. Alright to you, guys, all of my people on Instagram that annoy me – including myself.4chan:>Error: Audio streams are not allowed.
>>519048>>519053>>519055>>520000>Throwing tantrums is an effective way of arguing on 4chan.>Mods have always highly regarded my tantrums.
Holy fuck normies that have no concept of design are fucking delusionalhttp://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/1023/359
>>520047Is there a research paper or an advanced tutorial on how to babify faces or structures in general ? I remember keeping things smooth and stubby and avoiding sharp long lines, but these are just a few tips and tricks rather than an extensive study that gets into the science of it.
>>520047>quantifying babynessSo much autism in that research paper.Besides, cute ≠ potato. Proof: both classic Disney princesses, Korra and many anime creations manage to be cute without being potato. And the reverse: it is possible to look potato without looking cute. Pixar is close to the latter.Potato = baby.Cute = preteen and adolescentTwo distinct types. Ask any paedophile. But autists throw everything into one bag because no scientific paper has told them better.They are also trying too hard. The day they read somewhere that people react more positively to pink, they’ll start to make everything pink.Maybe art should be left to artists, not engineers, after all...>>520048She’s almost pretty in that de-babified version.
>>520052Korra isn't cute retard. She's not even meant to be cute. Show me what you mean by non-potato cute.> and many anime creations manage to be cute without being potato.for every "non-potato cute" face you post, I can post you 10 times "potato cute" that almost every show uses
>>520053>Show me what you mean by non-potato cute.Classic Disney.Character on the left: potato.Character on the right: cute.Who is retard now?
>>520056You are the retard for having such retarded and creepy standards for what you think "cute" is. Right now literally every anime an every disney movie is using the potato form to make their characters cute. It's even more ridiculous in anime where it almost feels like they're in a contest to see whos gonna come up with a more potato character. Also you will realize the younger/cuter a character and also human gets, the more potato shape their face gets in.
Warning to anyone coming across this thread for the first time:This thread contains unusually high concentrated levels of autism, shitposting and ignorance. Do not read.
>>520062Sounds like a description for every thread on every board.
>>520058You better not be talking shut about my waifu, Jimmy.
>>520058>Right now literally every anime an every disney movie is using the potato form to make their characters cute.You wish.Left: potato.Right: cute.
>>520569both are potato by your definition. the one on the right have a pointier chin, which makes her look more grown up and less cute even with the cat mouth.
Cute? Undeniably.Potato? 0 (on a scale from 0 to 10).>>520570>more pointy>more grown up>more uncute>moreNo “more”. It’s either-or.The difference isn’t matter of grade.It’s a quantum leapfrom potato to cute.There is no intermediate stage.The left one isn’t cute at all, only asexual. You confuse your sadistic fetish of asexuality, helplessness and psychophysical retardedness with cuteness. Your mischievous potato faces reflect your troll complex.
>>520571nice potato there :^)> There is no intermediate stage from being cute to uncute.lmao are you even trying 0/10> Your mischievous potato faces reflect your troll complex.Nooo no no no. Cute things are based on the general consensus of what people find cute. Like babies. babies have proportions where their heads are huge and have big eyes and ridiculously smooth facial features. There are no sharp edges on a toddlers face. Just as people find cats cute the same way. A cat have a toddler like face with huge eyes and big head proportional to its body, and a fur going all over that smooths its silhouette and hides and sharp corners.
>>520573what le fug
>>520577It represents the disdain the dominant generation feels for the new generation.
>>520617too bad the domain generation is old and doomed to DIE >:D
a lot of the animation is done in India where it's super streamlined / procedural but done for a fraction of the cost.
>>520577>>520617It represents the disdain cute people feel for potatoes.
>>518599>>511183>>518097>moon-faced moon-eyed downers
>>518161>I don't even know what you mean by owl-faced or owl-eyed.
>>520572>lmao are you even trying 0/10Yes. It doesn’t defeat my claim that there’s no continuity between cute and potato – because both qualities are mutually perpendicular (independent).
>>520695You are false. Time and time again you posted potatoesand claimed they weren't potatoes, even though they were potatoes. Especially in anime it's very rare to find a non-potato cute. And you failed to prove ur point
>>511140found the genetically disabled chick
>>520700>Especially in anime it's very rare to find a non-potato cute.I entered “anime characters” in Google Imagesand this is what I found.I’m afraid you are right.It wasn’t like this in the past.Anime becomes progressively more retarded every year.>Am I cute?No.
>>520811 (me)>and this is what I found.
>>520811 (me)>>520812 (me)>It wasn’t like this in the past.What anime faces looked likeback when Reagan was president...
>>520813 (me)...when embodiment of maximum potato was Sailor Moon.
>>512563>X-Men should not be glamorized
>>520811You've yet to post something cuter than the potatoes you posted so far.
>>520817Potato – pardon – cute enough for you?
>>520818Didn't know you had down syndrome fetish lol
>>520820No, you have it.Potato is your idea of cute.Also>cute>fetish
>>520819I guess you don't like the OP image potatoes cute as well. Maybe you like old women with wrinkles and diseases since you keep posting wrinkled faces with downsyndome and stuff
>>520822This is not even a beauty contest. This thread is about the incapacity of modern animation to capture the full range of human look. In the hand of a modern animation artist, every head becomes a balloon / a flexible rubber ball instead of a polished gemstone familiar from classic comix as well as real faces.Also I have answered it already:>>513439>This is beside the point because 3D animation shouldn’t be good only for cute face.>>516130>I shouldn’t be posting pretty women because beauty is indeed irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>>520821well, since your idea of cute goes against round smooth faces, i guess this is cute for you...
>>520821This is creepy as fuck, imagine this waking you from your sleep and asking you if you prefer your throat slit or getting poisoned.
>>520828This is obviously not cute. And this thread is not about creating cute faces.But it is an exceptionally good study example for 3D modelling.Ageing doesn’t make women’s faces develop those forms though. If anything, ageing makes sharp angles melt (making old people look like wrinkled babies). Sharp angles = youthfulness.Here’s one example of a pretty old woman. She’s not a good study material for basic face angles though.
>>520848>This is creepy as fuckI agree. That’s why I posted that: to show that potato isn’t cute.
>>520828>>520883 (me)To clarify my position:1. angular ≠ potato ≠ cute2. It doesn’t mean that angular = cute.3. Cute must never be potato but it needs not always be angular.4. Angular may not be cute. (Your very good example of that.)
>>520886you've yet to post a cute that isn't a potato...Do you think it's a giant coincidence that all the pixar and disney characters including pretty much all the OPs image girls are potatoes ? You can't even show one example of an angular cute yet you whine about potatoes
>>520887>that pictureThat’s a nice challenge to a claim that cute is angular.Very pretty and cute at the same time.Except §2 and §3 in >>520886.And not even potato – because corollary of §2 and §3:>2b. It doesn’t mean that round = potato.>3b. Angular can’t be potato but round is not always potato.And §5:>>520886 (me)5. Cuteness is a 3D artist’s excuse for inflatable balloon faces. He can’t model non-cute faces such as pic without washing their angles out.6. Even so, many of their “cute” faces are potato, not cute.
>>520888>That’s a nice challenge to a claim that cute is angular.thats not CUTE.
>>520887>>520888 (me)>not even potatoI admit that the only reason for that is that it’s pretty.Geometrically, it’s a potato. If we take geometry as basis, your example challenges my claim that potato is never cute.
>>520890>your example challenges my claim that potato is never cute>>520889>my example is not CUTE:-O
>>520889>not CUTE>posts “non-cute potato” to prove that all cute is potatoSorry, I don’t get it. In addition, I think that your example is cute. And pretty too.
>>520887>Do you think it's a giant coincidence that all the Pixar and Disney characters are potatoes?Neither coincidence nor choice. Instead, determinism. They can’t do better. See §5, §6 in >>520888.
>>511093No OneFUCKINGC A R E SARES YOU BITCH
>>520888>>520891She's not cute. She's hot and sexy for sure but not cute. She's grown up, lost her smooth toddler features and became a sexy girl on her late teenage years.I think the reason you clinged on to defending non-potato and sharp faces as cute because, not-cute sounds like not-pretty or not-desireable. Let's jsut clear the fact that both potato and angular faces can be easily attractive. Both these pictures ; >>520888 >>520887 are visually appealing. But one is cute and adorable, and other is alluring and sexy. Just because they aren't the same thing, doesn't mean they have to mean something negative about their faces.
>>520888That's not cute. She looks like a fucking MAN.
>>520911>That's not cute.That’s what I said:>>520888>non-cute faces such as picThe cute one that I’m discussing there is >>520887.
>>520911>That's not cute.>She looks like a fucking MAN.You shouldn’t say those two sentences in one breath. The first is right, the second is wrong. The picture is why.http://jezebel.com/5946162/gross-24-year-old-chinese-popstar-is-dating-a-12-year-old-girl>Society has created an idealization of femininity that is so much about (...) child-likeness that we've finally arrived at the point that an ACTUAL CHILD is the ideal WOMAN.– INeedAFavor to Tracie Egan Morrissey, 9/25/12 2:52pm
>>520889>thats not CUTE.>>520895>She's not cute. She's hot and sexy for sure but not cute. She's grown up, lost her smooth toddler features and became a sexy girl on her late teenage years.Are you sure we’re talking about the same person? I’m talking about "Vanellope-Von-Schweetz-Scared-Yelling-In-Wreck-It-Ralph_408x408.jpg" in >>520887.
>>520917I said "She's hot and sexy for sure but not cute" For the women pic posted just below it with lines on her face. I made a point about not being cute doesn't mean not being pretty and cute and pretty are different things and both are visually appealing
>>520918>Natalia Vodianova is not cuteThen your denial in >>520889 is misplacedbecause >>520915.And so is the whole discussion from that point on.
>>520920Thats not me buttkid :B I don't even know why you're quoting those posts which don't even relate.I already made my point here : >>520895 and here : >>520918
>>520921>I didn’t deny that Vaneloppe is cute while intending to deny that Vodianova is cute. That’s another anon.>Except I did exactly that, only in another post.Let’s see...>>520889>thats not CUTE.>>520911>That's not cute. She looks like a fucking MAN.>>520895>She's not cute. She's hot and sexy for sure but not cute. She's grown upYou:>why are you quoting those posts>they don't even relate.Really?
>>520916 (me)I’ll just leave it here...>https://jlist.com/?acc=144&___store=jlist>https://archive.is/oABOe
>>520922thats not me buttkid :B
>>520925>thats not me buttkid :B : >>520895>>520922>Thats not me buttkid :B>I already made my point here : >>520895Glaring contradiction.
>>520926That one was me but not the rest, and it doesn't contradict to what I say.cumkid :B
>>520928>I didn’t deny that Vaneloppe is cute while intending to deny that Vodianova is cute. That’s another anon.>Except I did exactly that, only in another post.Also:>cumkid :BThank you for calling me that pretty name :B.
>>520828There was an attempt by somebody...
>>520930i AM the one posted Vanellope and this post : >>520895bumkid :B
>>520931Looks like Bruce Jenner.
>>520932And how does it make >>520920 invalidexcept for a different post number:>>520895 instead of >>520889?
>>520934Because you misunderstood it
>>520933Or Bruce Crawford.
>>520935Vaneloppe is cute.>No, she isn’t.You deny cuteness of Vaneloppe???>No, I deny cuteness of Vodianova.Oh, you deny cuteness of Vodianova...>No, you misunderstood it.Our conversation since >>520888 in a nutshell.
>>520828She’s not ugly IRL at all...
>>520937Vaneloppe is cute.Yes she is you cumkid, I posted that initially as an example a cute potatoYou deny cuteness of Vaneloppe???Yes, I deny cuteness of Vodianova.You misunderstood it cuz u couldn't follow the posts. cuz ur a buttkid :B
>>520944Except you confirmed >>520891 in >>520895... I showed there that your post looked like a denial of cuteness of Vaneloppe.If your confirmation was actually a denial, that was most wrong way to communicate a denial.And wrong on two counts because I made it clear from the outset that Vodianova isn’t cute. So a denial of her cuteness would be extra pointless. The only cuteness that you could sensibly deny was Vaneloppe’s because that’s whose cuteness I asserted there.>>520888 me: Vaneloppe is cute. Vodianova is not cute.>>520889 someone: She’s not cute.>>520891 me: Are you saying that Vaneloppe isn’t cute???>>520892 me: Are you saying that Vaneloppe isn’t cute???>>520895 you: She’s not cute.Does it sound like “Vodianova is not cute”?Are you kidding me?Also, if >>520889 wasn’t your post, why did you respond to my response to it?Also, if you call me a cumkid once again, I will start cumming like a baby. I can barely hold myself already. Do you want it?
>>520949let the a le fug out with ur posts n ur cute denial rants u buttkid :B
>>520951I did not cum.
>Drawing and painting from plane heads is a central part of Chinese and Russian academic practice.However, 3D artists call it “bad edge flow”.
>>520988i mean you are literally retarded if you think that making planes to block out a head, and face topology edgeflow are even related.>3d edgeflow is based around how it will deform when it is animated.>sculpting planes is trying to simplify the face while keeping the most detail
>>521000>3d edgeflow is based around how it will deform when it is animated.>sculpting planes is trying to simplify the face while keeping the most detail>you are retarded if you think that these two are even relatedOr I simply mock your retardation. You tell me about the former (bad edge flow) when I ask for help with the latter (perceptually optimal 3D tessellation of an organic solid – human head in this case – using existing software). You can’t imagine 3D modelling without animation. You have just described your own limitation.
>>521000>>521045 (me)>These two are unrelated.Even so, no 3D artist should ever touch animation without mastering planes of the head (and other forms) first. The latter should be a prerequisite for the former. A topology should not merely deform nicely, it should also reflect salient volumetric features (crests and valleys) of the modelled object.Yes, you can have one without the other, but it’s like doing human animation without human. It becomes animation for the sake of animation. Result is OP abominations. The means (deformable meshes) have overridden the purpose (art).I blame your fascist mentality for that – your truncated sensibility, your copy-paste mentality and your contempt for exploration.
>>520700>>520811 (me)1. Progress in anime – driven by scientific findings of >>520047.2. The canon of beauty in Trump’s era.
>>521048> Even so, no 3D artist should ever touch animation without mastering planes of the head (and other forms) first.There are many routes to derive a proper geometry for a shape anon. personally I think reducing em to geometric simples is a much more valid route to take than the 'planes of the head' schematic.Studying a specific curved surface such as the human head as a set of planes will serve to fuck up your shaperecognition IMO.It'll train you to look for and to exagurate features that might not even be there in the face you are attempting to make.But all such tactics is really training wheels for what will eventually need to happen if you pursue realism in your work. You want to develop the ability of seeing any set of interconnected curves as a temporary abstraction in your mind to capture the actual shape. Taking both possitive and negative curvature into consideration to understand how angles meet and how fast curves are closing is how you really will learn to see what is going on with a geometry.So you can comfortably render any objects accuratly, not only ones you are familiar with. In fact, you should treat even familiar shapes as unfamiliar ones to make sure you don't insert your own assumptions into what you are capturing.
all year aroun du wander- am my hemorrgiages still down there- they am
how is this piece of shit thread still alive?
>>522006thats supposed to be cute ? its borderline creepy
>>511093Yeah, damn, I never noticed that. They all have chins and noses, two eyes and shit.
It's called the "cal arts" style and its the same style thats been festering in Disney films since, shit, the 60s? It's basically "art you can teach".
All of you are retards.
>>522211Newsflash buster, so are you. You just read trough ~260 posts just to call a bunch of people retarded. That anon, is quite fucking retarded.
>>520571>expression of someone about to go beat people up, or just constipated>region between the eyebrows will probably get wrinkled to shit thanks to all the grimacing>baring fangs in an intimidating mannerIt's kinda unsettling that such barbaric and unfeminine forms are regarded as cute in the modern world. How the standards have sunk.
I can't believe this fucking thread is still here. What a waste of space
>>511093Who's the fourth girl on the second row, What movie?
Both potato and cute.Come fight me.
>>520074No, I just got here too. This one is exceptional.Cartoon faces. Disney. Look similar. Ok.Result of discussion. None. Perhaps a change petition is in order or something. The issue of sameface is obviously causing much distress to grown men that watch and critique kids/family cg films.
Every Japan is now sameface#IfitAin'tBrokeDonFixIt
>>524185>The issue of sameface is obviously causing much distress>to grown men that watch kids/family films.I (don’t) like how you equate children’s films with family films. The parent is an enemy of the child. The prerogative of families is ensuring that children don’t become independent. Traditional family is the cornerstone of repressive forces in the society. Repressed children grow into repressed adults long past the statutory Age Of Consent. Only a sexually active adult can unlock the child’s full biological potential.>Perhaps a change petition is in order or something.To be honest, Pixar needs to do what brings it money. I doubt there’s much money in child erotica. Unless Pixar has the balls to become SJW – in addition to being profitable – and make children sexy again. There are chances the mum and the dad won’t notice.
>>513322some of them look straight out of obliivon desu