I am loosely involved with some research being done at the Institute for Creative Technology - in one line of work (not my project) they are trying to develop the technique for ultra-realistic computer- generated avatars for use in training films, etc. If you use anything more than a talking head with constant lighting, then the representation becomes a huge challenge. Think of the variation in lighting on a face as a person (avatar) moves from beneath a portico in heavy shade, across a courtyard in full sun, through the shade of a large tree, back into the sun, and then into shade from the portico on the other side (now partially lit by reflected light from the courtyard flagstones). To do this you need a model of the light color and intensity (relatively easy) and a model of the reflectance characteristics of the skin surface. A 2mm level-of-detail model of the face is not sufficient, they are finding they need to go to 1mm detail (individual pores). Otherwise large areas of the face look very artificial, like someone with a combination of excessive Botax plus excessive makeup.
All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real life. We can cope with a softened portrait and may even find it pleasing, but we recognize that it is an artificial representation. stan On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > William Robb wrote: > >>> On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this >>>> spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about >>>> the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo. >>>> Thats who they are. >>> >>> I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I >>> reply "You are old" :-) >> >> If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want, but if > you >> are doing pictures for other people, then do what they want. If your > models >> are whining that your pictures aren't flattering, you should probably > do >> what you can to improve their look for them. If all it takes is a > softening >> filter, then that's what you need to do. >> Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb > here >> and say that your instructor was full of manure. > > The instructor was full of manure. And not only for aesthetic and > commercial reasons, but for scientific ones as well: Human beings > don't > recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed portraits don't > look like the way we remember the faces of people we know. > That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different animal > form lenses intended for other purposes. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
