Daz3d skin renders & bodies are getting pretty good - but the faces are always uncanny-valley-fucked. Any anons got any examples of good faces from daz3d?
Fuck hand modeling faces use photogrammetry then slap the face on in Zbrush
>>573077Any good examples?
>>573077actually just googled for myself. I've started using daz3d for keyframe art, so having quick slider control over a decent face would be good - photogrammetry route has fixed expression.
would use photogrammetry for face structure like a mask then cut out eye holes and hand model eye sockets and eye lids
>>573083are you so incompetent that you dont see the value of scanning in a real face to later modify into different facial expressions? No wonder you use daz.
>>573083>keyframe art,what's that?
>>573066Because most people don't know how to pose a face to give realistic expressions. So you either get the "I just got a lobotomy" blank stare or you get the "I'm an over the top cartoon character" exaggerated expressions.
>>573115>the value of scanning in a real faceSeen here, Dan Farr's laser scanned real face. At the time everyone said it was unrealistically dorky. I've met the guy, this is him.
>>573066>Any anons got any examples of good faces from daz3d?The head meshes were workable canvases for faces until Gen 3/8 and its HD morph horseshit. The problem with your question is that taste is subjective and this board will shitpost mightily about what uncanny means here. The hair and shirt were modeled by SAV who also did the character texture and morph. It's Michael 4.
>>573168Here's Ariana Grande for Victoria 7. Good texture, remarkable likeness.
>>573168>>573169Note that Cathy requires HD morphs to be possible because G3F's head can't pull this off without subdivision.Your choice is either to carefully imitate a living person with sufficient photo references, or to actually know enough about anatomy such that you know what features harmonize with each other and which do not.OH SHIT IT'S ALMOST AS IF YOU NEED TO BE AN ARTIST OR SOMETHING
>>573066because you're not looking hard enough
>>573269no way those are renders