is the secret to realistic models the texture?I made this as a quick test to learn photorealism and it looks fine.>but the texture is shitI don't have a pen tablet, sorry.
Seems like the only usable thing you've got from that is a base skintones (and proportions which aren't completely wacky)Photo scans don't collect material properties. If this was a decent quality mesh your skin would instantly begin to look off and shiny. You need accurate reflectance, microsurface details, SSS, etc. You can actually get details from high quality scans, but you will need a lot of tuning and in-depth knowledge to make a face look good, it's not based on any one "secret" that anyone can find out in a day. If you're asking more for texturing in general, then yes, I've seen photogrammetry do some great things. I personally believe it's going to overtake organic modeling for photorealism.
>>538840thanks bro.but nah.photorealism isn't my goal.my dream would be in terms of realism more like Final fantasy shit and maybe FFXII type of models.What other software are good to learn?I made the base mesh on blender, and put some face textures in photoshop.but what else do I need?
>>538841>my dream would be in terms of realism more like Final fantasy shit and maybe FFXII type of models.FF is not realistic but that's in another discussion.>but what else do I need?time. and hard work. there are tutorials out there but i doubt they aim at your skill level, if you wanna try anywayhttp://www.digitaltutors.com/tutorial/1075-Painting-Workflows-for-3D-Assets-in-Photoshop-CS6http://www.blendernation.com/2014/05/30/tutorial-hand-painted-textures-in-blender/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7Axe2hbz8>and it looks fine.i don't think so. don't try to pass off a clay mask as a realistic face
You can achieve realism without texture. Look at this; a guy made that by smashing pieces off a rock and it looks more like flesh than most of us can manage with all our space-age technology.Even the best texture in the world can't save a bad sculpt.But a good texture on a good sculpt can be far more convincing than either alone.
>>538854marble does have subsurface scattering though, which i didn't expect since it's a rock. you think they chose marble for that reason though? i read that they actually painted over the statues like gaudy circus decorations but later on in history the english or some other group stripped it off.>>538834adjust material so the specular is fainter and way less hard. if sss isn't an option for your purposes, like a game, there's things you can do with warped diffuse with different spread for red green and blue, and a faint color noise texture for normal map might smooth out the shadow a bit. that'll remove a lot of the plastic look you have going on. also the mouth looks flat and you could add a crease for the eyelid in the geometry, or with a normal map or another map controlling the specular intensity, depending on what you're going to use.
>>538861>Among the commonly available stones, only marble has a slight translucency i.e. subsurface scattering that is comparable to that of human skin. It is this translucency that gives a marble sculpture a visual depth beyond its surface and this evokes a certain realism when used for figurative works. Marble also has the advantage that, when first quarried, it is relatively soft and easy to work, refine, and polish. As the finished marble ages, it becomes harder and more durable. Preference to the cheaper and less translucent limestone is based largely on the fineness of marble's grain, which enables the sculptor to render minute detail in a manner not always possible with limestone; it is also more weather-resistant.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_sculptureHow they managed to make the skin look as soft as in that sculpture is truly a marvel.
>>538864probably something like sandpaper
>>538870I think it said it in the wiki page but just the amount of detail and care that went into it is amazing.
>>538854Honestly there's a number of sculptures that I would absolutely fuck before even some 3dpd irl girls. I mean, if you could fuck a sculpture.I don't care if it is a rock.
>>538834hope you're baiting, otherwise you're the least talented motherfucker in the galaxy>is the secret to realistic models the textureno, the secret to modeling is modeling>I made this as a quick test to learn photorealism and it looks fineit literally has the shittiest "facial features" ever. Have you ever seen a human being before? Are you aware of the three spacial dimensions we live in?>I don't have a pen tablet, sorrythis has nothing to do with anything, you're just the worst. Your texture is 0/10. Anyone could take polaroid pictures of pen sketches delivered by a 90's fax machine and do better than thisI usually try to give constructive criticism and help out, but in you're case there's just no point to it..
>>538834Looks like a kindergartners paper mache project but worse.What kind of drugs were you on when you posted this?
>>538854>Even the best texture in the world can't save a bad sculpt.well not all models are sculpts. so you might want to rephrase your statement
>It looks fineKeep telling yourself that and you will be this shit forever.
>>538834Jesus christ you're also posting this garbage in /agdg/, get some self awareness
Ranked by importance for realism:Texture detail > lighting => material/shader >>>> geometry