New Jackson wallpapers

[Newc]

Ok, finally got this closer to what I wanted, so let me know what you think about it.



Available in 4 sizes:
1280x960 - http://dr.newcenstein.com/JennaBombpaper.jpg
1024x768 - http://dr.newcenstein.com/JennaBombpaper10x7.jpg
800x600 - http://dr.newcenstein.com/JennaBombpaper8x6.jpg
640x480 - http://dr.newcenstein.com/JennaBombpaper6x4.jpg

Note the filenames - the model I was using just happened to look a bit like Jenna from that angle, so I went with it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[sully]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

nice idea! the head should be tilted forward, or leaned back further, though. i think the streaks in the hair are a cool touch.

sully

[RacerX]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

Isn't the Jackson Bomb copyrighted?

[StukaJU87]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the Jackson Bomb copyrighted?

[/ QUOTE ] Probably, but this one looks a little different than Jackson's bomb.

[RR05xx]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

Boobs could be bigger [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

[ QUOTE ]
nice idea! the head should be tilted forward, or leaned back further, though. i think the streaks in the hair are a cool touch.

sully

[/ QUOTE ] because she is already leaned back, anymore would look funny because her hair is still hanging on her back where it should be hanging off her shoulders.

[sully]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

eh, imo, the hair hangs as if she were standing straight up, really... it's good, but not quite a natural pose. newc,i do have to say that your modeling stuff looks more realistic now.

[mm2002]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

Too much Aquanet, and the boobs are too big.

[Snoogans]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

Cool! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I like to play around with Poser now and again.
Here's a simple one I did recently!

[RacerX]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

Like 'em young, eh, Snoogs? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Snoogans]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

Not that young! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Newc]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

[ QUOTE ]
Too much Aquanet, and the boobs are too big.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Aquanet is the fault of the person who made the hair and didn't include functionality for more than standing poses or a few simple "blowing in the wind" shots (which beats me, cuz the modeling apps have such functionality natively and it's easy enough to add those morphs).

The boobs are right, they just look bigger because they're being held up by a tight bikini, plus the bright colors and stripes always make things look more pronounced.
And like I said, I wasn't really aiming for Jenna - think Jenna + implanted-Pammy [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Thanks Sully [img]/images/graemlins/toast.gif[/img]

I've got some other hair models that I haven't tried, but again the people that make most of these things are simply not adding a full palette of functionality, and some are simply too ridiculous to use for more than full-frontal shots. I realize they can't anticipate every single pose that is humanly or inhumanly possible, but certainly if you know how to make a model that looks good you should know how to add a full range of motion.

[rant - and I really do hate to this time...]
The biggest problem I've seen in recent years with this stuff is the emerging e-commerce options and the resulting decline in overall quality yet the prices are simply outrageous for the limitations of the product. $30+ for one hair model, + $30 more for a decent texture set (scans of real hair - call up a friend and have them lay their head on a scanner for free), and only a handful of deformations/morphs resulting in a limited range for many artists to work with. It seems to me they're not even trying any more. Back in '96-'97 when I was heavily involved in "the scene" and Poser was just coming up from version 2 to 3 (where user-generated morphs without a modeler were first implemented by way of Poser's Magnet deformers) you could find add-ons created by "average joes" that was not only free but functional within the limits of the program, and it was easy enough to modify them yourself to do what you wanted. These were beginners who splurged on 3D apps like 3D Studio (pre-Max) and Rhino 1 and others to learn how to be a 3D modeler and GAVE AWAY the best stuff they could come up with at the time, all to support the scene they were an everyday part of.
I once found a model of a Strat at a free model website that not only had separate screws for the pickguard and other hardware, but they had detailed threads on them, and the strings had wraps. The tuners had gears inside the housings, and the neck had a trussrod. The frets had tangs, and the inlays were separate meshes. The only thing that wasn't detailed was the pickup coils, but the mounting screws had springs around them. None of it was faked with transparency maps, it was 100% mesh.
And the chick that made it gave it away for free.
Try to find that today and you'll be sorely disappointed. You can find a cheap guitar that morphs into 15 different models, but it looks like crap, and it costs $20.
I understand that the expense of a 3D app like Max or Maya or Lightwave is not an easy thing to swallow, and neither is the time it took to learn it yourself or to pay for FullSail or ITT or DeVry, and I have no problem paying for a good product. The problem I have is that now that these people have the knowledge to use the tools, they're not putting forth any more effort than they did "back in the day", but they've got thousands of items for sale and expect them to be taken seriously, or expect the end-user to add all the functionality of a $30 product. That's like Jackson selling you a guitar for $1200 and telling you to dress the frets and apply the clearcoat because the tools are available to you.

I know some will say that if I don't like it I should spend the money and time and do it myself, and maybe I will someday. I'd just hate to turn into one of the money-grubbing slackers that are killing this scene. But I wouldn't mind crippling the e-commerce crowd by giving away a higher-quality product than they're selling. I'd love to see some of these snobs have to go back to their "real jobs" they dumped when they found out they could just churn out a few partially tweaked presets and call it a sellable product. What's sad is these are mostly the same people who used to be the coolest people I've ever met - they'd spend hours with you in a chat room helping you out and sharing whatever they'd learned or made and asking for help which was freely given because we had a sense of community - the PFO (poserforumonline) used to be a lot like the JCF. Now it's another dead dream.
[rant]

And yeah, my bomb's a lot different - for one thing, the shark mouth is crappy (cuz I can't find my flying tiger decal image) and the nose is like really jagged [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Plus mine's got a hot tramp on it.

So there [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[sully]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

tilted head

[StukaJU87]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

That looks better Jon.

[Budman68]

Re: New Jackson wallpapers

<font color="aqua">shouldn't she be facing the other way? After all, she is Jenna-friggin-Jameson [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] </font>