Eye modelling
graffixguy2_89649d288e
Posts: 3
in The Commons
This discussion was created from comments split from: Star 2.0 for G3F!!! whoot!!.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Does anyone care to hear from a classically trained artist and medical illustrator for a different perspective on the consistent problem of a cross-eyed look inherent in most if not all DAZ characters? This problem occurs no matter what scripting or which technique is used such as focusing on nulls or other objects. I have worked with DAZ charaters for many years, and always have to tweak the eyes manually when making 2D illustrations from posed 3D characters.
I would repectfully submit that the current 3D models of the DAZ characters eyes are not modeled correctly, in that human (and most mammals for that matter) have eyes that are slightly off-center. In other words the iris and pupils of the right eye. though a mirror image of the left eye, are located slightly inward to the vertical axis of the face, and vice-versa. The pupils of each eye are also not exactly in the center of the iris and the iris of each eye is not at the exact center of the eyeball in relation to an axsis drawn in the eyeball from the back to the front. There are several empirical studies of the shape of eyes, even recent ones involving laser scans, etc. that show this configuation to be very consistent in eyes that have optimal health and development. I would be happy to collaborate with the DAZ staff to correct this problem by modeling more accurate and thus realistic eyes for the characters. The crosseyed look can be minimized and perhaps eliminated by a correct configuration for each eye, even if the relative size of the eyes are larger in proportion to the head, such as in anime or cartoon-like characters.
Split as a thread on a toon character does not seem the ideal place to discuss realistic eyes.
The eyes have individual rotation dials, so you can adjust them however is prefered by you.
I don't see a reason why a base model would need that to be honest. If we need realism, there are shaping morphs that help us adjust the model. Normal and Displacement maps, morphs, textures, etc. It can be added to the figure without performing that adjustment to the base mesh.
Not to mention the insane amount of work for every, single, freaking character morph out there.... Changing the base mesh would destroy compatiblity with all geograft items, a lot of morphs, clothes... That solution would just introduce a ridiculous aount of work for minimal gain.
You can however make an HD morph and introduce it into the shop if you are a capable artist.
With all due respect, I didn't understand a word of the responses to graffixguy's suggestion. And even if I knew what "dials" were being referred to, I wouldn't have a clue how to adjust them to match the details he pointed out. But the default crosseyed look seems to be getting worse, not better. Here's a partial Iray render of a character based on William for G3M by Darwin's Mishap, which must be a fairly new character based on the SKU number. I can't figure this out for the life of me; all parameter settings for the eyes collectively and individually are set to 0. The responses here lead me to believe I'm just supposed to "deal with it." I don't know how to fix this in post-work either, but I'm not sure why I'm expected to. To my way of thinking, this is just god-awful.
If you go to the posing tab and select an eyeball (not the entire figure, but each eyeball), you can actually move the eyeball around...slight adjustments there might fix what you're after. I've done it myself with Cathy, who seems a little cross-eyed to me and was able to fix it to my satisfaction ;).
Laurie
Eyes are the window of the soul. So better eyes would always be preferable. Don't know why someone who tries to offer help should get so harsh reaction.
Realistic eye conversations in a toon thread? And it seems the solution was moving the position of the eye, not remodelling the whole item. Also this was kind of a dead thread from a few months ago... ;)
This was originally part of a toon thread, but someone made it its own. Toon or not, grafixguy's point is valid. I commented here because I did a search on this exact problem and it's the only one I found that touches on it.
I've been trying to move the individual eyeballs, but something's not working. I discovered what RawArt and Laurie were referring to about the rotation dials in the Posing and also the Parameters tabs. I had misremembered the situation on this particular figure; it was another where the eyeballs were set to zero already. On this one, when the default figure is loaded, each eyeball has its own set of values. I selected each and set it to zero - to no avail. Neither the sliders nor the keyboard could make the system accept any new value. The eyes didn't budge and my changes were ignored. Then I discovered that if I right-click on the Parameters tab name, I could select "Edit Mode" and then I could at least reset the values to zero. (And I noted that the character was still crosseyed, just in a different way.) I also discovered that, having done that, once I move the figure to a new spot in the screen, the default values rerturned.
Note the white icon in the Twist property. When I was in Edit Mode, I toggled each of the three properties for Up-Down, Side-Side, and Twist so that each of them had the displayed icon. I don't know whether that caused Daz to "override any controllers" or not - and I don't even know what that means - but since the values returned when I relocated the figure, I wanted to toggle them back. I was able to do so for Up-Down and Side-Side, but when I hovered the mouse over the icon for Twist, the icon disappeared. I cannot change it back. I thought this was a software glitch so I saved the work and restarted the program. No such luck. Now I can change the values, but the figure is still crosseyed and I don't know what I changed by messing with the toggle icons. For a while, I could select the whole figure and adjust the Eyes Side-Side value... and only the right eye would move. The left was somehow locked regardless of the obvious "Locked" settings of the property icons.
Regardless of all of that, I personally have a hard time telling which of a person's eyes is crossed, in real life too. I can't figure out which one to look into when I'm speaking to someone. I also can't figure out, in this case, which one (if only one) is off-center and which of the three properties needs to be changed and by how much. I often use the "Point At" property for each eye, which makes the process of scene composition vastly easier, but I don't think it'll work in this case. If I have to adjust one differently than the other, then use the "Point At" tool, will he become crosseyed again when the target moves? Or, will the software adjust the gaze taking the offset factor into account?
The point is, I'm not sure why I'm meant to spend these hours trying to work around something that should be fixed in the base model as graffixguy suggested. Until then, these eyes aren't "windows" as much as they are "fun-house mirrors." Very frustrating.
Actually the point of why this thread died was because remodelling wasn't the answer. I would work with the dials more. There should also be a cornea bulge morph that should help as well as a thread on how to use materials to help with eyes in this forum.
@john_antkowiak - did you check to see if for each eyeball limits is turned on? You can go into parameters for the translations you want and turn those off. I don't seem to have any trouble moving eyeballs around, at least not on the figures I've tried it on ;)
Laurie
Thanks for the suggestion, Laurie, but the Limits being on or off doesn't seem to be the problem. I'm going to use the word "zero" here in a couple of different senses, but if setting the position values to zero doesn't "zero" its position (i.e., to "straight ahead") then I don't know how much or in what diretion to correct it. My trouble telling which one is off-kilter means, to my eye, they BOTH look correct when examined individually. So I'm just as likely to spend hours trying to fix the one that isn't broke. If indeed there IS only one. And I won't know when they're both in sync, because again individually they both look correct to me.
Respectfully, MaleM3dia, attempts to sweep the issue under the rug by telling graffixguy to get stuffed didn't resolve the issue. Just as, when my career-programmer dad had a conversation with his IBM boss in 1972 about the massive problem they were going to have in the year 2000 because there were only two holes in each punchcard to represent the year and he was told there was no way they were going to make such an expensive correction, it didn't actually "solve" the Y2K bug. Nor was there a problem because this post was originally in a toon thread. If you're rendering Cookie Monster, google eyes is great. Otherwise, presumably, toon artists prefer to have their characters look at the focus of their attention as much as photographic artists do. The only difference in toons is shape and shading, not in function. No one is suggesting that all figures be retroactively corrected; the solution he proposed is the right one: to correct it in future models. Because having to fiddle with individual eye positions is almost enough to bag the whole hobby.
Zero position is not the same as "straight ahead". Zero position means the base position for the rig. The one it starts from.
If you look at the Genesis figures, their hands are not in a perfect T-pose as well - their arms are bent slightly. The same can go for other body parts of the figure. The bones "might" be pointing straight ahead - but that is not how a rig should always work. Especially that in some cases a rig might not work correctly when its not aligned with the body parts.
Anyway - The suggestion on changing the eyes is the 10 mil $ solution compared to a 15$ fix by posing the eyes.
If you change the base figure mesh - you will break compatibility with every single item out there on the market.
At the same time, posing the eyes is usually a quick solution.
And to be blunt - I'd rather pose the eyes myself than have DAZ break every single item I own.
If you cannot correctly pose the eyes - the problem is entirely on your side and there is only one solution:
You have to learn how to do it, Pick up a tutorial (tons of free tutorials on Youtube) and study up how to use the tools.
Also - you should NOT be in Edit Mode when posing something. If you cannot move the eyes - perhaps you are doing something wrong.
Especially that nobody else has the same problem with eye movement.
I'm not refusing to learn to use the tools, Thomas, but specific suggestions are welcome with that exact goal in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the base meshes of Genesis 3 are different from the base meshes of V4 and M4, are they not? And, I daresay, much improved. Are you suggesting that no future base mesh changes must ever be made, because they will break every single item you own? Have you made your case to Daz, to cease and decist all work on Genesis 4? I doubt it. And, do tell... how exactly does a change in eye geometry "break" all the shoes in your closet?
I wasn't saying that that's what "zero" meant; I was only saying that that's how I was using the term in that context. Thank you for your courteous and patient explanation, however.
Yes, I'm quite sure I'm doing something wrong, when the default character loads the way it does and behaves the way it does, before I touch it. If you look closely, you might see that I'm not the only one noticing the problem. Two others have said they've been able to overcome it more easily than I have. That's why I'm here; to ask for help. Do you have any to offer?
Yes, however telling someone their answer isn't correct isn't sweeping it under the rug. This does fall under user error and we have given suggestions on how to use the eyes, with also an additional point of how to light your scenes also pays a big part of getting eyes to "look correct" So respectufully back I would look at the suggestions offered and work from there.
I'm getting the feeling you are making a fallacy argument with negative emotions towards me....
Anyway,
Based on what Mr. Graffixguy said - the assumption on my part was that he wanted to "correct the eyes on the current figures". And that would change their topology and break compatibility. Which is a very serious issue.
Future figures are an entirely different thing. If the Genesis 4 line has better topology and rigging - there is literally nothing stopping them from fixing/correcting any issues, mainly because items are yet to be made for them.
You are welcome.
This is a fallacy.
My post directly states that the problem you are having with is "Posing the eyes". After loading the figure, you should be able to position the eyes to your needs. I was adressing your inability to do so there.
As for help - in order to pose the eyes you have to select the eye you wish to move in the scene. In the Parameter Tab or Posing tab you should be able to move the with the available rotation sliders. (Do NOT enter Edit Mode for this).
Remember that "Zero Pose" for the program does not mean "Straight ahead" but "Default Rig Position". This will avoid confusion.
Additionally if you click on the root of the figure (usually named Genesis or other variation) you should be able to access Pose Controls in the Parameter Tab. You can navigate to Head and Eyes pose controls that will let you move the eyes together in unison there.
Ladies and gentlemen, there does indeed seem to be a lot of miscommunication here. I too am sensing "negative emotion," but I promise you there is none on my part. All I am is confused, and mightily so. I don't know what I might have said to lead anyone to believe I haven't been following the advice I was given. I have. All of it. But what I encountered is what I encountered; it's not my fault that the figure behaves that way I described.
"As for help - in order to pose the eyes you have to select the eye you wish to move in the scene. In the Parameter Tab or Posing tab you should be able to move the with the available rotation sliders. (Do NOT enter Edit Mode for this)." I had already done that, several times, before the advice was repeated. It is not my fault that the values refused to be changed unless I was in Edit Mode. I don't know what Edit Mode is, but my saying so is only an invitation for someone to explain what Edit Mode is, not an ivitation to rebuke for having used it. "You should be able to move the with the available rotation sliders." Yes, I should. But I wasn't. I don't know why. And repeating the advice doesn't change that. I had already explained all of that beforehand.
"Additionally if you click on the root of the figure (usually named Genesis or other variation) you should be able to access Pose Controls in the Parameter Tab. You can navigate to Head and Eyes pose controls that will let you move the eyes together in unison there." Yes, thank you. I know that. I had alreday explained this in earlier posts. I don't know what else to say on the subject, without repeating myself. If anyone would like clarification on something I explained, I'll try to do that.
As for graffixguy: "I would be happy to collaborate with the DAZ staff to correct this problem by modeling more accurate and thus realistic eyes for the characters." I fail to see how this could be taken as anything other than an offer to make corrections on future generations of models. By his own statements, he'd been working with Daz figures "for years." It's what he said, and all I said is, it's the right answer. What strikes me as fallacious is suggesting that anyone was saying anything else. Why do people seem to be getting bent out of shape over suggesting an improvement going forward?
You don't have to enter edit mode for controlling the eyes. You can select the eye just by clicking it, or you can click the head and find the pose controls for moving the eyes.
Also I don't think graffixguy has worked with DAZ figures for long otherwise he would have known about the dials. No one is bent out of shape, however it does seem to be a disregarding of suggestions on how to select the eyes and position them. You don't need to remodel eyes or make improvements to accomplish this. As I mentioned before, this is why this thread died months ago.
I am at somewhat of a loss, as to what else I can say on this subject. It would be more accurate to say, "You shouldn't have to enter Edit Mode for controlling the eyes," or, "Usually, you don't have to enter Edit Mode for controlling the eyes." But the fact is, when I loaded this specific default character (and not when I load others), and when I wasn't in Edit Mode, I was unable to control the eyes individually. I have already detailed this several times. Now that I have entered (and exited) Edit Mode, the eye behavior is erratic and unpredictable, as I have also explained at length. There is no reason why moving the entire figure from Point A to Point B should cause the individual eye rotation values to change. There is no reason I can conceive why being in Edit Mode should make any difference one way or the other. But the behavior is what it is, plain as day. It's not my fault that the software is doing this. If you don't have an answer, that's fine - but please don't assume that I'm not taking the advice that's offered.
True, you don't need to remodel the eyes to solve this particular phenomenon, whatever it is. But that is quite a different question from whether improving the base mesh in a future generation of figures is the right thing to do. And I don't agree that "this" is why the thread died. My reading of this thread is, someone made a very generous offer, was assumed to be a liar because "he would have known about the dials" (even though he said specifically he uses them every time to correct the recurrent problem), was roundly criticized for making the offer, and shut up about it. That's hardly a "solution" in my humble opinion.
If the character you are having problems with is a freebie (it looks like Geralt? from the Witcher games which is why I speculate that it is a freebie) it may be broken. Does the base model have the same problems?
Ok more accurately you don't enter edit mode for adjusting eyes. That's what the dials and clicking the eyes and manually adjusting. I'm not sure where you got you have to be in edit mode but the information is incorect. Also as far as improving future models, there hasn't been a demostrated need to change when the solution was to modify the dials. That's what the OP didn't get, so far there hasn't been an actual problem to warrant this solution.
Also you can create a null and parent it to the camera and use that as an object for the eyes to point to. You would use the "point to" button in the general parameters when you select an eye.
This is actually a product in the store, A possible issue is when adjusting the facial rigging of a custom morph in Genesis 3, the best way is to adjust the eyes and eyelashes separately so that they don't rotate incorrectly when posed.
Also, JCMs from other characters you have could be keyed wrong and affecting other morphs. Dial out William and dial in someone else and see if it's still happening.
Check that, in the Parameters pane option menu, you have Consolidate Properties checked and Display Separate Items unchecked. I'm not sure if this is what you are seeing, but having the wrong combination of settings can lead to unexpected results.
The right eye is slightly cross-eyed, i've noticed independently too, long ago. In photo after photo the overwhelming majority of eyes, even looking directly at the camera typically have the both of the eyes looking very slight away to the right if you were facing in the direction of the person photographed. Occasionally you do see someone actually looking straight at the camera and the eyes are not crossed at all. There are some people born with one or both eyes slightly or severely crossed, look at the Prado Museum in Madrid of the old Spanish Nobility for famous examples, they have much art online now too, but that is rare. The problem should be fixed but it's pretty rare to have a picture of someone staring straight at a camera anyway.
Richard, I see that "Display Separate Items" was checked. What does it do?
Hi, Jestmart. MaleM3dia is correct; the figure is SKU 34741, William for G3M.
MaleM3dia, it isn't fair to characterize what I said as "you HAVE TO be in Edit Mode to adjust the eyes." What I said was, I repeated your advice over and over, before you gave it, before I had ever heard of "Edit Mode." I was unable to affect any change in the eyes' positions. By accident, I discovered that there was an Edit Mode option in the Parameters Pane option menu, and I followed Jestmart's advice: I pushed the button, and observed and reported what happened. No matter how often you insist that all I have to do is click an eye and adjust the values, it doesn't change the fact that on this particular figure, and so far as I know this figure alone, this is not true.
ChangelingChick, this sounds like an interesting thing to look into. I don't fully understand how JCMs work, though. Is there one property in particular I should watch (I almost said, "keep an eye on" lol) as I do this?
Hi, Nonesuch. (Is that a Huckleberry Finn reference, BTW?) I didn't quite follow your train of thought. Are you saying that there are very few human beings who don't display any cross-eyed...-ness... in photographs? If that's true, I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that most people are right-eye dominant. In cases where they don't seem to be, I wonder if it's because they're trying not to look directly at the camera? (In its direction, yes, but not focused on the surface of the lens?) When you say the problem should be fixed, are you referring to the 3d eye geometry? I would agree with that, not because it causes usually-but-not-always-minor inconveniences for artists, but because the whole point of the 3d modeling endeavor is to recreate the human form as accurately as possible. At least, that seems to be the point given that each successive generation of figures recreates it more and more accurately. Personally, I'm looking forward to the generation that achieves real opposable thumbs! :) Have you ever tried to touch any character's thumb to his or her pinky, without moving the pinky? Good luck!
No, If you read what I said wrong maybe I left off a word of negation or something, sorry. I'm right eyed dominant despite being left-handed that my Drill Sargeants thought I was pulled their leg(s) when they tested me for that. People, even gregarious and brave people don't unnessarily look one in the eye and hold it for an extended period as that's sort of a challenge to how you're hold the gaze of.
When I say the problem should be fixed I am not referencing geometry but lining up of the right eye so that it's not crossed. Nothing more. The rest is up to the experts.
What I said was I've seen lots of photos doing genealogy and just seeing pictures and must of them never looking directly at the camera but to their right slightly. That doesn't make them look cross eyed though. When they do look directly at the camera they aren't cross eyed either.
There are cross eyed people. I've know them personally. I've seen pictures of them. And there are even famous painting of them 500 years old (or thereabout).
That said, I've worked with the G3 character and seen that the right eye was slightly crossed to the bridge of the nose. The G2 I don't remember. Those are the only 2 i've worked any with.
I just made up nonesuch00 as a nonsense name when I joined the forums because I wasn't in the mood for being clever. I've never read Huckleberry Finn or seen the movie(s) but now am curious how it's used in the book now. As a fellow with oldtimey older relatives they use nonesuch and atiquated language somewhat often compared to other Americans and it makes sense how they use it.
Haven't tried doing any thing which the hands besides simple grasping and being thankful the hand position usually hands my somewhat poor hand posing results.
You asked me to be clear and I was. You don't use edit mode to adjust the eyes. What's unfair about telling you that you don't need to use edit mode after you said you used it. Additionally I have the same product and i was able to select the eye and use the dials to change the x position and lock it, and also changed the side-side rotation, as well as use the other dials, so my information is accurate.
Well that's not the only character with the problem.
The image only shows me moving the eye position by selecting it.