![]() The trouble is, the target mesh might be too low quality to map to appropriately and might have a strangely different topography as well. OR the face's vertices can be morphed dynamically by trying to map the topography person's face to the topography of the mesh, in theory resulting in extremely accurate representations of your expression. ![]() Either stuck between neutral and one of a set of other poses as above like if you don't have a face for say, being scared, the face could only partial angry and/or partial happy, hoping to approximate what you're doing. I fully understand why they don't do it though. It allows for subtle things like partial smiles, and it's typically easy to set up. You take another picture of it in that state, and then tell the 3D software to blend between the neutral face and that other face. Then change the positions of the vertices of the face a bit, pulling some this way or that until it looks like the character's smiling, or frowning, or angry. Basically you start with a neutral face, and then take a picture of it in that state. However it's easier to make a smiling face for example with shape deformations that looks exactly how you want. But, muscle deforms the skin over the unflexing parts, something bones don't do so well.Īdd enough bones and rig everything right, and you can approximate muscle movement. ![]() They just move or rotate in specific ranges (like your jaw is a hinge, your eyes rotate mostly in the same place in your head, etc.). For the uninitiated, bones more closely resemble the major underlying structure of the body or things that don't flex, so a jaw bone, "eye bones", and to an extent the tongue and ears all make more sense to have rigged bones. There's advantages and disadvantages to both.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |