Celebrity Look-a-Likes for 3D figures part 3
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Noticing some of the celebrity look-alikes sold by different vendors. It seems like the Celebrity Series misses the look and has us guessing who it is and even then I don't see it. Whereas, Vicey3D at Rendo captures the look, where you don't have to guess who they are. Adam Thwaites the Creator of Celebrity Series needs to work harder in providing us products that look like celebrities as the name are titled.
Ironically, if you survey the various computer aided resources for face identification (like StarByFace or Clarifai's image recognition engine) that rely on purely objective methods to reach their conclusions, @adamthwaites' takes tend to be much more easily identifiably as whom they're supposed to be (with exceptions, of course.)
Makes you wonder about the identification abilities of AIs, right? Unless, of course, if one belongs to the group of persons who say that computer coder always leads to trustworthy results.
Less facetiously given that we don't know what the objective standards the website uses it's hard to judge. My guess would be it has a large database and basically matches elements from the photo like the eyebrow texture, but isn't really looking at something like facial structure as computers can't really reconstruct that from a single photo.If one was doing celeb fan art, an easy solution to identifying the figures, would be to put nametags on them - No more guessing or need for AI to identify them.
Although one could do that with the basic Genesis 1-8.1 figures too
Not really. As I've mentioned previously in this (or possibly the thread(s) it is a continuation of) I have a professional background in fine art portrait/fashion irl studio photography (as a photographer's First Assistant - the equivalent of the Director of Photography on a film set) working primarily with celebrities. Including multiple celebrities discussed as subjects in this very thread. And what people on the Internet assume these famous people look like irl tends to be severly limited since everybody has, at most, two or three visual angles from which they look most iconic. And if you're a photographer of any sort with a big name celebrity on your hands, you're gonna wanna get the best look you can - which is almost always one of those two or three angles.
There is even a precedent for celebrities/models refusing to be photographed from any angles other than their two or three known good ones (because a peron's look is usually their brand, and why would you want to mess with that?) and even decades old examples of people with specific clauses in their contracts dictating things like which side of the face they are allowed to be photographed from.
Case in point - I've been in the room casually (not as a photography subject) with Matt Damon, totally not realizing for the longest time it was Matt Damon, for the very simple reason that Matt Damon the 3D person really doesn't look all that much like Matt Damon the 2D person of film/photography - unless very specific angles and lighting are adhered to.
Based on my real life professional experience, if a 3D ccelebrity likeness is able to be easily, accurately identified from virtually any angle by either a human or AI algorithm trained on commercially avialable film/photography footage of the person rather than irl multi-angle visual experiences of them, it is almost certainly a poor likeness of them in real life. Which is what an unadorned likeness is ideally supposed to capture.
I knew it!! Topsy IS the best character ever!!
I don't trust StarbyFace & Co. all that much, anyway. The best resource is still our collective very human eyes right here. O.o
For example, if I've seen Marvel's Loki, I'm more likely to recognize Sophia di Martino's likeness, or might say she looks familiar. Then others on here will agree or not - because they've also seen Loki, are good with faces.. etc - or not even know who that is, depending on their own experiences and memory and so on, so we put the name forward and reach a consensus.
Only then I think a "StarbyFace confirms it by 99%" might be valid. That stuff is not reliable, i.e hair color influences A LOT... so far, we're better than AI to recognize celebrities... for all that's worth. :P
On the other hand humans are very skilled at "recognizing" faces in quite few places where there are none... like the man in the moon, Mother Mary or Jesus on a Cheese Toast and Elvis, when he again and again leaves the building.
As RayDAnt wrote: makeup, light and the angle from which a 3d figure has been rendered play a vital role in producing a likeness to most celebrities. Sometimes it's also a "certain way to look" (expressions or certain quirks like Natalie Dormer's "Ducky Face" etc.) that makes us "see" a likeness on a promo picture, when there isn't any.
And, of course, there's a chance that a person wants to see a likeness even in fact there is none.
100% !
Was there any doubt? Topsy
Technicalities aside, I'll take a celeb model I can recognise over one I can't. Whether the look in the promos is due to lighting / expression / angle and easy or not to reproduce is, of course, a factor.
This is true in most cases.
Given that this thread is given over mainly to artists who are specifically and explictly creating look-a-likes I find this quite the statement.
totocandy1 has started selling some of their face morphs and textures on DeviantArt. Slightly stylised but may be of interest.
Salma Hayek - Salma HEADMORPH for sale by totocandy1 on DeviantArt
Gal Gadot - Gal head morp for sale by totocandy1 on DeviantArt
Anya Taylor Joy - Anya head morph for sale by totocandy1 on DeviantArt
Of course I could just be seeing things I want to see.
They look interesting. But as example $22.75 for the Salma Headmorph - you get a complete Salma lookalike for lower prices. (I have two - I like the one from sangriart).
Yes, I think pricing is an issue, apprently they are doing an Emma Watson but for $100, seriously?
I'm actually the opposite. A remarkable number of celebs aren't particularly attractive based on their features and skin alone. The hair, costuming and makeup can change the whole look of the person. I tend to be more interested in the "feel" of a character being pulled off than a feature twin... which is why none of mine are celebs *cough* Has nothing to do with not being able to duplicate them *cough* Nope. Not at all.
Jesus, the Gal morph looks like a Mad Magazine illustration.
Same!
There are many figures out there based on celebrities that I find attractive and/or interesting, and the figures are well done in the sense that they have a strong likeness.
But there´s just something missing, something I can´t quite put my finger on... somehow the figure just doesn´t have "that certain something" that the celebrity has. Perhaps the uncanny valley effect is in play?
I´d much prefere a figure that doesn´t exactly replicate the features of a celebrity but somehow manages to capture a little bit of their spirit.
Example: Ophelia 7 / Lucy Lawless
I agree, and I think I've said this before, sometimes creators can go too far into caricature land and it's just not pleasant to the eye, even if some likeness is there. Often enough, it's a miss on both counts...
Anya looks good!
The other two, Salma Hayek and Gal Gadot, however...
Generally, I'm buying non-celeb characters anyway. 'Feel' is a good thing to go for there.
Given that science has proved that what we think to see often is not what we really see - and vice versa - I think that statement isn't that far from the truth than You would seem to indicate.
A "likeness" is in many situations depending a lot on the circumstances, but also on what goes on in our mind. If there's a "This a picture of (insert name of celebrity here)" we are often a lot more inclined to see a resemblance that isn't really there... The same with "trademark" expressions/poses/hair- and hairstyles, which make us wanting to see a resemblance or enhance an only slight resemblance greatly.
Just check how all those professional impersonators do their job. Without all the extras they usually don't very much like the person they impersonate... just think of the japanese Elvises..
If a clay render has a good enough likeness to identify someone without anyone telling who it is supposed to be, that is when I consider the likeness to be good enough.
Textures, makeup, expressions, hair and clothing can change the appearance a long way in both directions.
Absolutely. TritiumCG's likeness of Sophia Loren in the clay render is stunning. https://www.deviantart.com/tritiumcg/art/Sophia-Loren-Head-Morph-for-G8F-833997794. I do think the clay render is the truest measure of a sculpt. A good texture can cover up flaws in the sculpt, but without the texture, there is nowhere to hide. However, you need both to make a complete character and TCG's figures are not complete characters, much as I feel they are stunning.
Regards,
Richard.
Indeed, we, as humans, are very susceptible to expectations. If we're told to expect to see something then we're already primed to search for those characteristics. This extends to other facets of our lives; food and wine for example. If one expects to not like something they will often not disappoint themselves. It's also how professional wine tasters were fooled in blind tastes; being served a white wine at room temperature and being told it's red or being specifically told one group is the low volume, high quality wine and another the mass produced stuff. We're all to this manipulation, whether we like to admit it or not.
That said, as richarcdandtracy says above, the truest measure of something is to present it in its simplest form - no deception. But a celebrity might appear quite mundane when met on the street but their on-screen persona; poise, attitude etc maybe what projects them in to the perception we have of them - a certain amount of manipulation might be necessary to pull off a look-a-like in people who don't have distinct enough features. Some people certainly don't;
totocandy1 certainly appears to be producing caricatures in some of their work, but sometimes not quite enough so that the uncanny valley reaction is met rather than comical recognition. There's an 'article' that shows a handful of celebs without their distinctive features - I won't link it because unfortunately it's on a clickbait website but if you wish to search for it: "What Celebrities Would Look Like if Their Distinctive Features Were Missing" - you might find a better source.
Or a smirking cat face...
According to StarByFace, KrashWerks' newest girl, Harper, is a toss-up between Abbie Cornish, AnnaLynne McCord, Cheyenne Kimball, Abigail Cowen, Miranda Kerr, Daisy Ridley, Adelaide Kane or Billie Eilish. It reports only a 45-55% match, so I take it with a grain of salt. Harper may or may not be an original design, but I still think she's modelled after someone strangely familiar, seemingly out of a John Hughes teen film.
Pretty sure it's a take on Alison Dilaurentis, if anyone.