the rain stops; the city is shrouded in mist, but the sky is something else - a thousand miles of crystal clear ice, with a million pinpricks of lights frozen in their dance across the heavens.
Sunday
another random girl
Take a peek at fullsized image first then click on comments for the rest of my post. =p
If you've ever worn (or seen) cheap wigs then you'll realise that her hair isn't real... and then realise that, well, the whole thing isn't real. It's a doll.
Several things come to mind. Damn that's a good doll. Looks like it has full skeletal articulation and wire mesh finger articulation as well, being able to hold the pingpong ball. Secondly, who made it.
and yet on second examination : i really can't decide if she's real or not. her hair definitely looks fake : look at the way the roots are arranged and parted, as well as the frizziness which would not exist due to oils produced in normal hair. so maybe it's just a wig on a real girl? or perhaps just a case of really messy hair.
the problem is, the best models and dolls would end up indistinguishable from the real thing. silicone flesh over an aluminium structure. it's uncanny : look at the wrist bones and collarbones. i'm even halfway convinced she's real.
more tellingly, i don't think there are materials realistic enough to mimic human skin especially in strong lighting like this. but i might be wrong. human skin is the hardest part to imitate : even in computer simulations.
actually the cg idea never entered my head. the lighting seems too lifelike. then again, you never know =p (and cg hair is always too perfect while fake hair is usually slightly too messy)
Hmmm...HAHAHA Omg Mark, it's true the moment you say she's not real everyone agrees.
Erm... I beg to differ everyone. That girl is very alive. In an odd position maybe, photoshopped perhaps and in very bad lighting.
For one look at her eyes. Eyebrows are not an easy thing to fake. For crying out loud they are plucked!! Notice the tufts as they come centrally?
Secondly, eyes have a very odd texture. It is very very very hard to come up with a substance that actually reflects the way the eye white and pupil do.
Thirdly, her face is very assymetrical. (my dentistry education is so rocking right now) The eyes are not on the same level nor the same size and the lip is displaced to the right. It is very hard for an artist to recreate that unless working from a real life model and even then...
She has collarbones! And I can see the outline of her neck muscle (the sternocleidomastoid) Geez that is some dedicated artist.
The hair looks fake. Possibly it is. but it also is very voluminous and by sheer amount of it I would just say it is badly dyed. The famous wax model maker I don't know her name placed as many as 600 hairs per square inch. And even that could not compare to real hair.
Her hands look slightly odd agreed. But did you notice the obvious knuckle bones? The obviousness of flesh hanging onto the fingers? The presence of the arm bone (the ulna ) protruding?
Lastly, in all logic. Look at the surrounding!!! Let us say we had an insane artist with lots of money and time to spare. Let us say he had an anatomists help and an engineers help to recreate an entire body out of synthetic material to such an amazing degree... (as much as Mark argued to me about the possiblity of that I am still loathe to say that it is actually achievable) It is a photo on the internet! Of one of the thousands of japanese models online! In a shed! with a spare jacket by her side... and a ping pong ball. A 'doll' of that caliber would be at some high class art presentation and cried out all around the world.
I.e. therefore ergo conclusively hence... she is real
actually my own feelings are that she's real from her skin tones alone, but the rest, well.
it's like the paradox where the only evidence of a good spy agency is a total lack of evidence.
it's the little things : why is she holding a ping pong ball? only reason i can think of is to prove how good the articulation of her fingers are, and you only need to do that if you're a doll. =p
something like the artifical plant problem : you can tell a plant is artifical by its perfect leaves : so perhaps some artifical plant makers should deliberately put wilted and deformed leaves on their products?
may she's fake because of her boobs : it is mostly artists fantasy that a girl so young has such developed boobs. =p
so many pieces of evidence for both sides of the argument.
Haha. I dunno, I decided I thought she was CG based on the picture alone. :P Granted I didn't look at it for very long, but seriously, if you look at the fingers - they have the same slightly-not-quite-real articulation the characters in Advent Children did.
However, I can't imagine why anyone would want to randomly make a CG of that kind of quality, so yeah.
No, it's not because of what Mark says. When I first saw her I freaked out in terror. My knee-jerk reaction was that I thought she was a Real Doll, and Real Dolls freak me out.
I think I figured out why I think she's not real. She's too...'perfect'. She's thin, but most thin girls don't have breasts that big. And her skin texture is frighteningly smooth, very unreal.
Now I get it - it's the Uncanny Valley theory. I think it's because I'm a girl; seeing this girl is like pretty much seeing something made to look as much a girl as possible, but isn't. The quality of the picture is that of lifelessness: we have no idea who she is, or what she is doing. She's just sitting there, motionless.
In professional fashion photography models are always designed to look as if she is in some form of motion, caught in a type of action representing something - here, we have either a girl designed to be a doll, or a doll designed to be a girl. It's freaky.
Check, also the reason why I detest Ayanami Rei.
So it could be a real person photoshop'ed so drastically until the actual person is unrecognizable. In which case, there really is no different from her and a Real Doll picture: both do not represent an actual person. And both frighten me.
If this was really a test where "If Mark said she's fake, everyone will agree", then that's just damn funny :P
There are so many explanations to why she could be real, and why she could be fake but then it's kinda hard to tell when you're looking at a digital image which could've been tweaked. Even if it's a photo of a real girl, if it was Photoshopped, it doesn't make her very 'real' anymore.. o_O
I've seen what digital artists can do, so I still think she's fake.
omg karcy don't be drunk ahaha! =p but you've caught one of my lines of thought exactly : here, we have either a girl designed to be a doll, or a doll designed to be a girl...
16 comments:
If you've ever worn (or seen) cheap wigs then you'll realise that her hair isn't real... and then realise that, well, the whole thing isn't real. It's a doll.
Several things come to mind. Damn that's a good doll. Looks like it has full skeletal articulation and wire mesh finger articulation as well, being able to hold the pingpong ball. Secondly, who made it.
You know what, I'll just stop here.
and yet on second examination : i really can't decide if she's real or not. her hair definitely looks fake : look at the way the roots are arranged and parted, as well as the frizziness which would not exist due to oils produced in normal hair. so maybe it's just a wig on a real girl? or perhaps just a case of really messy hair.
the problem is, the best models and dolls would end up indistinguishable from the real thing. silicone flesh over an aluminium structure. it's uncanny : look at the wrist bones and collarbones. i'm even halfway convinced she's real.
more tellingly, i don't think there are materials realistic enough to mimic human skin especially in strong lighting like this. but i might be wrong. human skin is the hardest part to imitate : even in computer simulations.
what do you think?
LOL, my first thought was that it was a CG model, because the fingers don't look quite real. But damn.
actually the cg idea never entered my head. the lighting seems too lifelike. then again, you never know =p (and cg hair is always too perfect while fake hair is usually slightly too messy)
I doubted she was real only because her body looks awkward (fingers, arms, thighs) but her head was rather convincing..
Not real. A girl can tell if a girl's for real, models or not. Instinct. She looks sort of lifeless.
-
CatR.
Hmmm...HAHAHA
Omg Mark, it's true the moment you say she's not real everyone agrees.
Erm... I beg to differ everyone. That girl is very alive. In an odd position maybe, photoshopped perhaps and in very bad lighting.
For one look at her eyes. Eyebrows are not an easy thing to fake. For crying out loud they are plucked!! Notice the tufts as they come centrally?
Secondly, eyes have a very odd texture. It is very very very hard to come up with a substance that actually reflects the way the eye white and pupil do.
Thirdly, her face is very assymetrical. (my dentistry education is so rocking right now) The eyes are not on the same level nor the same size and the lip is displaced to the right. It is very hard for an artist to recreate that unless working from a real life model and even then...
She has collarbones! And I can see the outline of her neck muscle (the sternocleidomastoid) Geez that is some dedicated artist.
The hair looks fake. Possibly it is. but it also is very voluminous and by sheer amount of it I would just say it is badly dyed. The famous wax model maker I don't know her name placed as many as 600 hairs per square inch. And even that could not compare to real hair.
Her hands look slightly odd agreed. But did you notice the obvious knuckle bones? The obviousness of flesh hanging onto the fingers? The presence of the arm bone (the ulna ) protruding?
Lastly, in all logic. Look at the surrounding!!! Let us say we had an insane artist with lots of money and time to spare. Let us say he had an anatomists help and an engineers help to recreate an entire body out of synthetic material to such an amazing degree... (as much as Mark argued to me about the possiblity of that I am still loathe to say that it is actually achievable) It is a photo on the internet! Of one of the thousands of japanese models online! In a shed! with a spare jacket by her side... and a ping pong ball. A 'doll' of that caliber would be at some high class art presentation and cried out all around the world.
I.e. therefore ergo conclusively hence... she is real
Could be real and photoshoped. Even the hair is doable w/o PS.
actually my own feelings are that she's real from her skin tones alone, but the rest, well.
it's like the paradox where the only evidence of a good spy agency is a total lack of evidence.
it's the little things : why is she holding a ping pong ball? only reason i can think of is to prove how good the articulation of her fingers are, and you only need to do that if you're a doll. =p
something like the artifical plant problem : you can tell a plant is artifical by its perfect leaves : so perhaps some artifical plant makers should deliberately put wilted and deformed leaves on their products?
may she's fake because of her boobs : it is mostly artists fantasy that a girl so young has such developed boobs. =p
so many pieces of evidence for both sides of the argument.
Haha. I dunno, I decided I thought she was CG based on the picture alone. :P Granted I didn't look at it for very long, but seriously, if you look at the fingers - they have the same slightly-not-quite-real articulation the characters in Advent Children did.
However, I can't imagine why anyone would want to randomly make a CG of that kind of quality, so yeah.
No, it's not because of what Mark says. When I first saw her I freaked out in terror. My knee-jerk reaction was that I thought she was a Real Doll, and Real Dolls freak me out.
I think I figured out why I think she's not real. She's too...'perfect'. She's thin, but most thin girls don't have breasts that big. And her skin texture is frighteningly smooth, very unreal.
Now I get it - it's the Uncanny Valley theory. I think it's because I'm a girl; seeing this girl is like pretty much seeing something made to look as much a girl as possible, but isn't. The quality of the picture is that of lifelessness: we have no idea who she is, or what she is doing. She's just sitting there, motionless.
In professional fashion photography models are always designed to look as if she is in some form of motion, caught in a type of action representing something - here, we have either a girl designed to be a doll, or a doll designed to be a girl. It's freaky.
Check, also the reason why I detest Ayanami Rei.
So it could be a real person photoshop'ed so drastically until the actual person is unrecognizable. In which case, there really is no different from her and a Real Doll picture: both do not represent an actual person. And both frighten me.
-
CatR.
some typos, sorry.
-
CatR.
Third post, sorry. Man I can't believe it, Marks really can think like a girl - she's fake because her boobs are too big.
-
CatR.
argh i;m drunk
If this was really a test where "If Mark said she's fake, everyone will agree", then that's just damn funny :P
There are so many explanations to why she could be real, and why she could be fake but then it's kinda hard to tell when you're looking at a digital image which could've been tweaked. Even if it's a photo of a real girl, if it was Photoshopped, it doesn't make her very 'real' anymore.. o_O
I've seen what digital artists can do, so I still think she's fake.
omg karcy don't be drunk ahaha! =p but you've caught one of my lines of thought exactly : here, we have either a girl designed to be a doll, or a doll designed to be a girl...
tiffany: no it wasn't =p
Post a Comment