[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Sometimes they're thick and bunched up, and then not 2 frames later they're thin as fuck, and then 2 more frames later they've disappeared behind the eyeball - is this all rigging? How do you even do something like that?
>>
Pixar character is objectively trash, has zero sexual attractiveness and is made exclysively for onions guzzlers and their abominable basedlets
>>
Well, you have different eyes and swap them according to the needs of the scene.

That's what I do for my eye-popping fetish porn.
>>
>>624426
>has zero sexual
Stopped reading right there.
>>
>>624426
What is wrong with you?
>>
>>624415
>How the fuck do Pixar eyes work?
they don't.
pixar is fucking trash tier.
>>
>>624455
He's probably full of stale jelly.
>>
>>624415
I don't like the way Pixar does eyes. If you notice, there's always one static catchlight in every single scene no matter the lighting, the eyeballs rarely ever reflect the surroundings, they're shaded like cue balls rather than mucus covered globes, in night time scenes the scleras always appear brighter than they really should, etc. etc.
Saying "it's cartoon styling" isn't really valid anymore, because we've seen studios like Illumination render their eyes accurate to the environment, with proper reflections and light catching, and Illumination is arguably even more cartoon-styled than Pixar is.

Anyway, what is your question even asking? How they change the size of irises or something? I genuinely don't know.
>>
>>624484
>If you notice, there's always one static catchlight in every single scene no matter the lighting,
If I don't misremember, that's entirely on purpose. They render an "eye" pass which allows for controlling which reflections show on the eyes, then compose it back with the rest of the scene.

They could render environment reflections if they wanted, anyway.
>>
>>624493
Well yeah, the question there is why don't they do it? It, at least in my opinion, looks much nicer than a single white circle in every eye.
>>
File: 1510024762592.jpg (41 KB, 470x470)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>624460
another valuable blenderfag opinion
kys asap
>>
>>624484
>Saying "it's cartoon styling" isn't really valid anymore
eeh, it's the style they chose for their cartoon eyes, end of story. Stop shitposting.
>>
>>624580
>the question there is why don't they do it
Because they like it the way they do it.
>>
File: 564134364.jpg (50 KB, 729x654)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>624580
>why do they do this
>in my opinion they shoud not
seems like they have a different opinion than you anon... and also billions of dollars, while you got jack shit but complaining on internet boards
>>
>>624580
i believe they already tried other kind of reflection. And single white circle reflection is easier to look good in every situations. But yah! maybe you can do some experiment to find improvement
>>
>>624426
WTF is up with your autistic cuck-faggotry?
>>
>>624484
>f you notice, there's always one static catchlight in every single scene no matter the lighting, the eyeballs rarely ever reflect the surroundings, they're shaded like cue balls rather than mucus covered globes, in night time scenes the scleras always appear brighter than they really should, etc. etc.
>Saying "it's cartoon styling" isn't really valid anymore, because we've seen studios like Illumination render their eyes accurate to the environment, with proper reflections and light catching, and Illumination is arguably even more cartoon-styled than Pixa

nobody cares weather you like it, they asked how it was done.
>>
>>624484
I disagree with your view but thanks for at least breaking down WHY you don't like it as opposed to just saying "it's shit."
>>
>>624439
Same kek
I thought he was some anime fag but I went back and it only got more interesting
>>
>>624439
I dont understand why would your culture invest so much 3d tech into pure garbage instead of true beauty.
>>
>>624484
I would say it's styling because I'm certain pixar could go realistic and they probably look for realistic renders when looking through portfolios.

But I get why it bothers you.
>>
>>624426
>sexual attractiveness
They make movies for children
>>
>>624415
Yes it's basically 100% rigging and animation. That is what defines Pixar's movies. There's nothing magic in any one of these shots. They look like different assets constructed on a per-shot basis because that's exactly what they are. Swap in two or three eyeball meshes with twenty or thirty blendshapes. Then you can cartoon it.
>>
>>
>>625257
Their r&d investment suggests otherwise.
Toy story tier graphics and even poor hand-drawn cartoon is good enough to sell to kids, it's character design, setting, and story that matters.
Emphasizing cutting edge graphics is an excuse for lack of creative progress, and are only there to increase street cred and lure in more tasteless autistic manchild audiences.
>>
File: 1518826971886.jpg (17 KB, 319x268)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>625415
keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek
>>
>>625415
>If you make stuff for children you aren't allowed to make it look nice
Lots of industries would disagree with you.
Sure kids might not care about shitty looking products, but their parents will.
>>
>>625306
I Don't recognize a few of these.
>Row 5 Column 1
>Row 4 Column 4.
>Row 6, Both Column 1 and 4.
>>
>>625452
>>Row 4 Column 4.

Fairly certain that's Aladdin.
>>
>>625489
Not Aladdin, he's 1-1
That character is from Hercules I think
>>
>>625415
>Emphasizing cutting edge graphics is an excuse for lack of creative progress, and are only there to increase street cred and lure in more tasteless autistic manchild audiences.
porque?
>>
>>625489
Ah yes. I forgot about the famous Disney character "Knock-off Aladdin"
Looked it up. The few I didn't recognize were from some of their movies I've only seen once or twice.
4-4: Princess the the Frog
5-1: Beauty and the Beast
6-1: Brother Bear
6-4: The Black Cauldron
Other than Beauty and the Beast (Which is a weird shot) I've only seen those others twice at most.
>>
>>625415
literally all the tech you use today for modeling was developed by pixar you mong
>>
>>624426
youre a fucking retard lmao
>>
>>624415
A combination of rigging and blendshapes. Also, sometimes, they'll use distortion spaces and, very, VERY rarely, they'll rotoscope it in post, after rendering.
>>
>>625723
as was expected from studio famous for multiple hour-long tech demos
>>
>>624460
examples of god-tier eyes please?
>>
>>625415
(You)
>>
>>625306
They're really expressive. Just from the eyes you can figure out how the character feels.
>>
>>624415
its probably lots of scripting alongside splines and blendshapes
>>
>>625452
>>Row 5 Column 1
not sure
>>Row 4 Column 4.
Prince from Princess/Frog
>>Row 6, Both Column 1
it's from Brother Bear
>>and 4.
no clue
>>
>>624415
> How do you even do something like that?
Mostly rigging.
>>
Good topology, corrective blendshapes, custom nodes, and lots of animation controls.
>>
>>629148
/thread




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.