6 ms·

I would be interested to hear from an animator what makes teeth so challenging.

KineticLensman 6y ago
I'm not a figure modeller but I heavily use the Genesis 8 digital human from Daz 3D [0] My guess is that teeth haven't been that interesting to date and that the modellers don't have access to hundreds of reference pictures / geometries of teeth for their modelling. As opposed to reference images of skin textures, etc. Tongues are probably the same. In fact I don't think I have ever created a render of a figure with their tongue out. Once they take the time, the teeth should be easy to improve. [0] https://www.daz3d.com/technology/ https://www.daz3d.com/technology/
- Budabellly 6y ago
  I would say that modeling teeth with geometry is very easy. The material, lighting, and rendering is the challenge, especially when you consider all of the occlusion (and hard/soft body dynamics) from your lips that is inevitable with teeth. Some form of subsurface scattering[1] is a must, and not easily done in games/apps because you can't really "bake" it like you do for most other textures to run performantly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering#:~:text=Subsurface%20scattering%20(SSS)%2C%20also,surface%20at%20a%20different%20point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering#:~:text=....
  - kleer001 6y ago
    (20 years vfx experience, me) Subsurface scattering is the correct answer. It's a very small area and a very expensive calculation. Teeth are translucent and the coloured lighting on them changes rapidly.
cma 6y ago
I think one thing is they are translucent/subsurface scattering and the enamel->dentin layer shows through underneath in kind of volumetric ways. Even lower teeth will show through behind the tips of upper teeth a bit (with a standard overbite).
Igelau 6y ago
It's probably an 80:20 problem of sorts. More like a 99:1. Externally, people mostly appear to be comprised of flesh and hair. Pick any random square inch and the odds are that you will land on flesh or hair. That gets different on eyeballs, but they are still just bags of goo connected to muscle. The devil there is in the details of the blood vessels and the iris and things. And then you get to teeth, which are like wet rocks. You're building this thing that is going to bomb if it can't do soft, meaty, hairy things convincingly and then there's this itty bitty section you're only going to see sometimes that is a dark membraneous cave full of wet rocks.
kleer001 6y ago
vfx veteran here Technically speaking an animator might know. A lighter would have a better idea. And finally a shader writer could tell you exactly. If you were interested in the more technical breakdown of responsibilities in the industry: (of course it'll change from studio to studio, but this is pretty good) https://discover.therookies.co/2019/05/22/job-titles-in-3d-animation-visual-effects-and-what-they-actually-mean/ https://discover.therookies.co/2019/05/22/job-titles-in-3d-a...

I'm not a figure modeller but I heavily use the Genesis 8 digital human from Daz 3D [0] My guess is that teeth haven't been that interesting to date and that the modellers don't have access to hundreds of reference pictures / geometries of teeth for their modelling. As opposed to reference images of skin textures, etc. Tongues are probably the same. In fact I don't think I have ever created a render of a figure with their tongue out. Once they take the time, the teeth should be easy to improve. [0] https://www.daz3d.com/technology/ https://www.daz3d.com/technology/

Budabellly 6y ago
I would say that modeling teeth with geometry is very easy. The material, lighting, and rendering is the challenge, especially when you consider all of the occlusion (and hard/soft body dynamics) from your lips that is inevitable with teeth. Some form of subsurface scattering[1] is a must, and not easily done in games/apps because you can't really "bake" it like you do for most other textures to run performantly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering#:~:text=Subsurface%20scattering%20(SSS)%2C%20also,surface%20at%20a%20different%20point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering#:~:text=....
- kleer001 6y ago
  (20 years vfx experience, me) Subsurface scattering is the correct answer. It's a very small area and a very expensive calculation. Teeth are translucent and the coloured lighting on them changes rapidly.

cma 6y ago

I think one thing is they are translucent/subsurface scattering and the enamel->dentin layer shows through underneath in kind of volumetric ways. Even lower teeth will show through behind the tips of upper teeth a bit (with a standard overbite).

Igelau 6y ago

It's probably an 80:20 problem of sorts. More like a 99:1. Externally, people mostly appear to be comprised of flesh and hair. Pick any random square inch and the odds are that you will land on flesh or hair. That gets different on eyeballs, but they are still just bags of goo connected to muscle. The devil there is in the details of the blood vessels and the iris and things. And then you get to teeth, which are like wet rocks. You're building this thing that is going to bomb if it can't do soft, meaty, hairy things convincingly and then there's this itty bitty section you're only going to see sometimes that is a dark membraneous cave full of wet rocks.

kleer001 6y ago

vfx veteran here Technically speaking an animator might know. A lighter would have a better idea. And finally a shader writer could tell you exactly. If you were interested in the more technical breakdown of responsibilities in the industry: (of course it'll change from studio to studio, but this is pretty good) https://discover.therookies.co/2019/05/22/job-titles-in-3d-animation-visual-effects-and-what-they-actually-mean/ https://discover.therookies.co/2019/05/22/job-titles-in-3d-a...