[Shawn Solomon]

is the undead flat or round? do u think it's photoshoped or a 3d character screenshot? your opinions please...

http://www.blizzard.com/war3x/files.shtml
_________________
Never expect the unexpected if infact you already know what it is...

[einam]

3d.

with a little photoshop retouching.

[ShockWire]

I'd have to go with edited 3D.

I think most of their characters (at least the ones I've seen from WC3) are done in 3D, and retouched for a background image.

[GRKboy]

Id have to say 3d. [Even though I've seen airbrush artists than can do that], it would be much less of a 'hassle' to do it in 3d....
_________________
It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that Man. -J.Handy

www.sketchedmedia.com

[Capt. Fred]

I'd say 2d -- a painting..
Or actually maybe half and half.

Could have been achieved by either means but it is certainly not a pure, raw 3d render -- it is to some extent a painting I'd say.

[tilokani]

In the original Warcraft 3, non expansion I mean, there were three covers to choose from: the undead, orcs, and humans. One of them, I believe was done 2D and the others were all done by 3D means, and rendered with painting. So it's both. This one also, is done in 3D and then skinned with 2D art.


You know...I really don't know what I'm talking about.
_________________
girls like shining

[cheney]

Its a painting without doubt. Its easy when you load the largest size image and look at the texture details. Look at the texture on the lips. While the texture is rough the lips are actually smooth upon closer inspection. Then look up into the teeth. The shading of the teeth compared to the lips is even all the way across the teeth. With 3D the shading would be extremely specifc to each tooth and perhaps the texture rather than merely coating an area. Now look at the hair. Try to pick apart individual strands or sections. The hair is heavily smudged in the areas where it bunches together. Then the hair does not leave a definate angled shade, but a blurry flat haze between itself and the face (this is very low opacity). Now look into the eyes. The eyes are full of detail. I think this is where most of you have been thrown off. The details are sharp within the iris, but again the shading (not considering the reflection) is mostly flat. 3D, makes extremely acurate lighting to the poing where you have to often tune it down for the object to look more natural, and I don't really see that in the eyes.

Last, look at the battle ax. If it were to really be blurred from perspective in a 3D program then the blurring would be sharp, even, and numerical as it fades to sharpness. This is called using a diffusion filter in most 3d programs. It does not at all look like a diffusion fliter touched this, but rather a paintbrush in Photoshop set to blur brush.

I am neither a painter or modeler, so I could be very wrong. To get better opinions ask the 3D guys at CGTalk. Also compare this to Dhabih's work. Dhabih's facial textures look brilliantly accurate and rough exactly like this. Check his gallery at Digitalart.org
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[lowpoly]

Well, the folds under the eyes are perfectly symmetric but differently lit so it has 3d roots. The question how much 2d was added after that cannot be solved.
_________________
www.frs635.com

[-HoodZ-]

the teeth and the lips looks 2D but as lowpoly says about the eyes....hmmm