First work posted

[c-wheeler]

There is a black rod that comes down and fits into the white material near the studs which you havn't modelled at all ??????? Sorry not with oyu there

 

How did you create the complex light filtering down through the mesh and onto the lable? Straight scan of a label thats all

 

Can you show us the bump map that you used to get the wobble on the black rod round the top. Yes

 

Why does this head strap not go through the circular fixing on the back?

The pose isnt on

 

You claim that the image couldn't come from a photo because the helmet is too small but it isn't like people don't make a living from portrait photography is it?

Not at all -I said that I started doing this for them because the bits were too small. The whole thing has just got biggger is all

[KenH]

Begorragh and bejasus! Now I'm having doubts. Arragh....is it or isn't it? I forgive you if it isn't. Whatever the case, you have a fine mask model that you should be proud of.

[heyvern]

Chris,

 

This is all talk... there is no confirmation with words. We need to see it... we need to see the final render... with wire-frames...

 

I am beginning to think my theory correct. My feeling is... if this is a real 3D image that you created with cool tricks and AM skill... you should be THRILLED at this type of attention. You should not be reluctant or defensive.

 

Any one of us here would be falling over with happiness and pride to be accused of submitting a photo as an AM rendering.

 

Anyone else here would gladly supply all and any evidence needed to persuade doubters. There is no reason to feel threatened or accused... just prove us wrong. You can do so easily.

 

I will keep an eye on this thread but will not post anything further until there is...

 

1) Final render of original image... as large as the original for comparison.

2) Wireframe screen shot of said image, from the choreography for comparison.

 

Keep this up and I won't even apologize if I am wrong. This is just mean now. If it is a real AM render... you are just dragging this out for some odd reason that I don't understand. Show us the proof. Haven't seen diddly squat so far. Have not seen one single thing that has change anything since the first viewing of that image.

 

This is not a unreasonable request. You have been justly challenged. Prove your skills beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

Vernon "!" Zehr

[shaunf]

Yup... theres nothing for it. I'd need to see a 360 degree rendered rotation to be completely convinced. I agree with Vern. If it is rendered... it is SPECTACULARLY real!!!!

[John Keates]

I agree with Vern here. I could tell you why the images you just posted don't fit. For anyone with half a brain they are farcical. I could paint arrows on images pointing to things, I could repeat questions that you have failed to answer. I could ask you to explain your explanations. But this would just generate more words and I have had far to many of those types of argument.

 

I could make myself look clever by saying exactly why your explanations don't fit (for instance that the image you showed just wouldn't work as an environment map for the scene as the lighting is UTTERLY different), but I have far more efficient ways of pleasuring myself.

 

[EDIT] I just checked that bump map. Apart from the fact that it is tiny and messy, it doesn't even tile!! Look... 3d is hard. One of the things you have to develop is an eye. A good eye is an honest eye.

 

I have been thinking of doing a poll to see how many people are suckered by this. Frankly I find it hard to believe that anyone is, and if more than 2% of people here think that we are dealing with anything other than fraud then my feet will feel like they have been shoved in the freezer.

 

As Parlo has stated, the standard thing is for you to show a wireframe and a render of the view as in the original post. We shouldn't have to ask for any more than that and it should be perfectly easy for you to do so as you have already rendered those images (surely?).

 

There are only two roads to go down now. The choice is yours.

[c-wheeler]

So is this where I hang my head in shame and disapear forever from this forum?

 

So the consensus of opinion is that :-

a) I am a complete wally

I have made a model of a fencing mask(more than one)

c) My modeling skills are improving

d) The model I made couldnt possibly have been used to make that render

[KenH]

I don't think anyone wants (or is asking for) that either way. IMO a shaded wireframe screenshot of the chor you used to make the original image with a section of it rendered looking exactly like the image would prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

I can't see why you would lie about it when you obviously have a great model on your hands that would be more than enough for a post in the showcase forum as it is.

But at the same time, I don't know understand why you haven't shown the chor yet.....which you must have if the first image is rendered.

[c-wheeler]

first off Ken

This whole project was done months ago and:-

I cont open the original render from cd

The manufactureers cant send me a copy by email because their computer crashes

Choreography

I obviously have the cho file. But I made a rotating action to get the best shot of the contour fit system. After a few q renders I picked the right one and rendered that frame. Now I dont know wich one that is, and if I pick the wrong one, I am scr***d, because it wont match up.

 

Model file

Likewise the model file has changed as well, and I am unsure wich version I used- I have chsnged the original and now have a contour fit and non contour for both foil, and epee- with lots of corrections

[c-wheeler]

Yes I know, all lame excuses

[KenH]

So, you can't use the chor you have to produce a similarly realistic effect? The exact angle doesn't matter....it's more the lighting and general setup. I'm also sure there was some tweaking in PS so it's not going to exactly match.

If you can't do that, well, it's unfortunate.

[c-wheeler]

Not now I cant, no.

I'me going to Holland in an hour and I havn't even packed.

 

I wont be back till Wednesday. Plenty of time for me to reflect on my shortcomings. Nah, best thing I could do is hang my head in shame and trundle off to a life as a pig farmer or something. I still cant understand why they payed me for faking it though.....

[c-wheeler]

Abject apologies to all people I anoyed/impressed with a complete and obvious fake. Obviously shouldn't have tried to fool you.

Terra campester and all that

[John Keates]

Nice photo. Still not what we asked for it it? Render and wireframe from the same view, or an admission.

[pancho simpson]

c-wheeler just give john what he´s asking for, i think all this beating-round-the-bush is hurting your credibility. I judge u not, i merely offer advice

[luckbat]

Are you guys just skimming this thread, or what? C-wheeler already confessed and apologized, three posts up.

[Dearmad]

Not now I cant, no.

I'me going to Holland in an hour and I havn't even packed.

 

I wont be back till Wednesday. Plenty of time for me to reflect on my shortcomings. Nah, best thing I could do is hang my head in shame and trundle off to a life as a pig farmer or something. I still cant understand why they payed me for faking it though.....

This reads as sarcasm though.... sans smileys and all. "Yeah I confess. Odd the idiots paid me though..." meaning they wouldn't have paid him if it was fake- and it implies he didn't fake it.

 

The next post is oddly countering that one though...

 

What an interesting thread this has been, however.

[robcat2075]

Well, at least it didn't turn out to have really been made in Poser.