and how would you make her today?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-47YFsSGI
>>998778>How was she made?Who cares? Don't fall into the nostalgic graphics trap.>and how would you make her today?Follow any realistic modelling guide. It all comes down to more or less the same topology, textures, normal maps, and hair curves. Just choose your programs, and then look up tutorials on how to use them.
>>998818fuck off anon. You don't see graphics like this anymore. Not even stuff this detailed. If you've ever used software like Maya, 3DSMax, Blender etc. you know it's not trivial to depict bodily fluids and cellular changes.
>>998778Is this from a vintage 3d porn video?
>>998844Parasite Eve 2 (see first reply)
>>998818Go fuck yourself, we don't want your modern slop
>>998838blendshapes, i would assume the spittle was animated by hand. sweater fuzz is an impressive attention to detail considering the ages of the cutscene.
>>998838You're a retard
>>998838>Not even stuff this detailed.Literally looks like plastic
>>999097*A masterpiece that looks like plastic
>>998838>Not even stuff this detailedYou posted an AI upscale. AI upscales add new detail that wasn't truly there in the original. Analyze the original vid if you want to find out what they really did. Then copy that, and pay a couple hundred bucks for Topaz to get what you're asking for.
>>998838take off the nostalgia goggles it looks shitshe looks like a mannequin with jaundice and pinkeye
>>998779I like how stuff like this separates the artists from the button clickers.It would be one thing if we were on /v/ and most of the people shitting on it would have an excuse to have bad taste due to a lack of experience and knowledge, but people on an art board should know better.Most of what’s going on there is excellent, the surreal visuals, the pacing, the disturbing monster design, and the crunchy ear-molesting sound effects with music that enhances the mood, but doesn’t get in the way. The biggest problem I have with it is the horse sound. If this were made today it would look boring, the camera would be doing a bunch of silly shit, the monster design would have to be toned down to not disturb general audiences, and there would be stupid and over dramatic music blaring in your ears.Modern games may look “””better”””, but they completely fail to capture the energy that this has.
>>998778Ah, Sylvia. My ex-wife. Whenever I think things can't get any worse, I think about her and how she totally screwed up my life. She's a woman who loves a man; any man, any time. I'll never forget the day I came home early and caught her with the upholstery man. I married her for better or worse. Unfortunately, it never got any better.
>>999179You're a retard
>>999278You know I'm right and that's why you don't have an argument.
>>999290You're a retard
>>999140Too much detail lost in the original vid. The rendering resolution was likely 4k (or thereabouts) and then it was downscaled and compressed so much detail was lost. The AI upscaling successfully recaptures most of the studio detail.
here's what I'm thinking so far- there are several different models.- the resting hand closeup model is distinct from the main body (possibly)- the legs appear to have expanded (it's possible these are actually simulated muscles... Square Pictures had that ability, was used in Spirits Within)- The spine penetration shots may have been done by positioning a spine model to the side of her (it doesn't look natural really
>>998778Japanese studios liked softimage a lot.
The face is the part that seems the most difficult to pull off... the way it bubbles and the torn flesh expands and swells. It's so organic, is the thing.
This thread is a psyopEither OP's blind or doesn't know the fundamentals of 3D
>>998778>>998838The creature design is cool and I like the detail of the face splitting apart at the jawline but quite frankly the overall execution is dogshit. This looks shitty, like a DAZ model.
