Jesus, somebody, somewhere, PLEASE, nuke all pseudo-human-making software! Why does ANYONE like this crap? Why, ‘cuz a cross-eyed amblyopian pseudo-human that looks like a guy in drag, rather than a woman with her hair pulled back, is just SO SO Hot??????
They’d look a lot better if properly rendered and color graded to match the backgrounds, but instead they export an image from the modeling program or previewer and poorly paste them into the image.
I used digital people for my second Relative Age cover and they looked pretty real (not counting the Quantum Fetus).
BL, I love ya, but I have YET to see one pseudo-human that looks okay. I haven’t seen your cover, so let’s just assume that yours is the exception–but IME, not ONE.
Keep in mind I said they look “Better” and “pretty real”. We have realistic digital characters fully animated in movies, so it shouldn’t be that difficult to render a still image of one for a book cover, yet as you pointed out that is not the case.
BL–there’s a huge difference between Disney or Pixar or whomever paying computer animators tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a realistic Jurassic Park dino, or an animated character, versus a cheapie online program. I mean…it’s like anything. GIGO which also applies to cheap freebies onlne. I mean, look at that “queen” in her heavy-lidded cross-eyed wonder. YUCK.
Except a still image requires none of the animation, tracking, and rendering of thousands of frames.
I’ve created some pretty real-looking images, and in the hands of someone trained and with better software they can be photo real. The issue is that these people are all about minimum effort. They just want to be best-selling authors. They don’t want to do any of the work.
Also, don’t blame the Queen. It’s not her fault a gnat landed on her nose.
Jesus, somebody, somewhere, PLEASE, nuke all pseudo-human-making software! Why does ANYONE like this crap? Why, ‘cuz a cross-eyed amblyopian pseudo-human that looks like a guy in drag, rather than a woman with her hair pulled back, is just SO SO Hot??????
They’d look a lot better if properly rendered and color graded to match the backgrounds, but instead they export an image from the modeling program or previewer and poorly paste them into the image.
I used digital people for my second Relative Age cover and they looked pretty real (not counting the Quantum Fetus).
BL, I love ya, but I have YET to see one pseudo-human that looks okay. I haven’t seen your cover, so let’s just assume that yours is the exception–but IME, not ONE.
Keep in mind I said they look “Better” and “pretty real”. We have realistic digital characters fully animated in movies, so it shouldn’t be that difficult to render a still image of one for a book cover, yet as you pointed out that is not the case.
BL–there’s a huge difference between Disney or Pixar or whomever paying computer animators tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a realistic Jurassic Park dino, or an animated character, versus a cheapie online program. I mean…it’s like anything. GIGO which also applies to cheap freebies onlne. I mean, look at that “queen” in her heavy-lidded cross-eyed wonder. YUCK.
Except a still image requires none of the animation, tracking, and rendering of thousands of frames.
I’ve created some pretty real-looking images, and in the hands of someone trained and with better software they can be photo real. The issue is that these people are all about minimum effort. They just want to be best-selling authors. They don’t want to do any of the work.
Also, don’t blame the Queen. It’s not her fault a gnat landed on her nose.
Hey Google . .
Define “amblyopian”
Ha! Omg that’s funny!
“Ambyoplian”! There’s probably not much more to be said…other than to second the motion to vaporize pseudohuman-creating software.
Massive font failure, among other cover failures.