Do math da face
If there is a fact that everybody has his/her preference about what balance of facial parts looks best, there is another fact that an ideal balance of facial parts do exist. This is basically a reflection of the ideal in the face of Caucasoid though, I think it has also somehow universality in it, so I want to introduce it here. I used one of my model as an example because her face has some typical good balance among my models.
As you can see it's not so complicated, is it?
Lower lids is the center of head vertically, the length from lower lids to chin equal to from lids to top of head. The width between eyes is same as eye width, so as to nose wings width. So I can say this model has bit smaller nostrils than ideal ones. Mouth width is wider than nose wings but fits within the inner width between iris. The nose length is twice the length between nostrils and the center of lips, but it's typical male face ratio, if the model is female it would be better being 1.2 or around that. The distance between the contour and the outside of the eye varies greatly depending on the FOV. It says "0.5" in that image but if the fov is very low like 0.2 the value should be 0.75, on the contrary if fov is like 0.8 to 1.0 the value should be much smaller than 0.5. It would be easier to understand if you imagine a fisheye lens.
At last,
it's not that I'm thinking the balance between facial parts should be follow this theory, rather uniqueness of faces should be respected I think. But when you are lost at creating face of models, getting back to this theory wouldn't hurt.
Thanks for reading
-
2
-
2
-
4
4 Comments
Recommended Comments