I could fix this, but it would require combing all of her fur back into place and risking the bug happening again. This was the last image I got out of her before it happened.
@OneAmongOthers
Allow me to try to break it down for you.
You’ll notice among the tags the phrase, “uncanny valley”. “Uncanny valley” refers to something that is very close in appearance and/or motion to what it is trying to be, but just off enough that it instead causes a feeling of repulsion in the viewer. It is much the same way that some people find mannequins and baby dolls to be “creepy”. The EG “mascot” costumes are an excellent example of the “uncanny valley” trope.
There are certain boundaries of style that, when crossed, become strange and unappealing. If one were to really see a flesh-and-blood animal with the exact proportions of the 2D ponies, it would likely be more horrifying than “cute”.
The above model looks more like a plastic model covered in flocking than an actual animal. The hair is too obvious of a render, and the eyelashes look like something that was just glued on, and not at all like actual eyelashes. The combination of the attempt to be “realistic”, but failure to do so, firmly places this image in the “uncanny valley”.
Why do you people see this as weird or horrifying? I think its pretty awesome! The eye granted needs some work, but the main problem I see with it is the iris and pupal is a bit dilated. Plus her eye is fully opened and lacking a tear duct as well.
Her fur looks fine though the inside of her ear needs a thinner layer with more skin exposed. And the image is pretty static so it seems to be a bit awkward. Once the artist animates her a bit I bet she will look more adorable.
You people are attached to the cartoony style so much anything else is simply seen as weird. I just don’t understand it.
@GhostTheCapitalist @Frostbite
At least some of the people here have common sense. You just plain can’t render ponies with normal hair and fur - it never works. Yes, we know that they have fur coats, and that can be successfully implied in a 2D drawing,
Allow me to try to break it down for you.
You’ll notice among the tags the phrase, “uncanny valley”. “Uncanny valley” refers to something that is very close in appearance and/or motion to what it is trying to be, but just off enough that it instead causes a feeling of repulsion in the viewer. It is much the same way that some people find mannequins and baby dolls to be “creepy”. The EG “mascot” costumes are an excellent example of the “uncanny valley” trope.
There are certain boundaries of style that, when crossed, become strange and unappealing. If one were to really see a flesh-and-blood animal with the exact proportions of the 2D ponies, it would likely be more horrifying than “cute”.
The above model looks more like a plastic model covered in flocking than an actual animal. The hair is too obvious of a render, and the eyelashes look like something that was just glued on, and not at all like actual eyelashes. The combination of the attempt to be “realistic”, but failure to do so, firmly places this image in the “uncanny valley”.
Her fur looks fine though the inside of her ear needs a thinner layer with more skin exposed. And the image is pretty static so it seems to be a bit awkward. Once the artist animates her a bit I bet she will look more adorable.
You people are attached to the cartoony style so much anything else is simply seen as weird. I just don’t understand it.
Like this: >>462514 ?
@Frostbite
At least some of the people here have common sense. You just plain can’t render ponies with normal hair and fur - it never works. Yes, we know that they have fur coats, and that can be successfully implied in a 2D drawing,
but in 3D, it’s just weird.
This isn’t bad. Lots of smooth brushable fur. The eyes just need to be fixed.
@JP
Are you guys kidding me? She looks absolutely horrifying.