I am new to Clo and have been using Optitex for 3D. I created mannequins following the ASTM size chart in Optiex
I used the same ASTM size from the Clo library.
The Optitex mannequin and Clo ASTM mannequin of the same size drape clothes very differently. Has anyone else experienced this? Which mannequin is more realistic?
Hey dec312019pixel. What is the draping issue? Can you show us? Do you mean draping in Optitex vs. draping in CLO?
thanks for your message Pablo! I created the exact same size mannequin in Optitex. I imported the Optitex ASTM mannequin into Clo. The same outfit in Clo looks so different on the Clo avatar and the Optitex avatar. I think the Clo avatar has more curve in the upper back/shoulder? I'll share some screen shots
The correct avatar in Optitex. This avatar has the correct posture. Apparently, this was done intentionally for the avatars to use Alvanon, or I don’t know why this was done. I import an avatar from optitex and do the conversion to an avatar.
Posture is a momentary fix in most rigged avatars. I would be more concerned about good toolset to document and cross reference datums with your slopers. It's process control and toolset flexibility within the range of avatar types you need to be concerned with.
To important an issue to simply default to using anyone's default digital avatar. Ownership of the problem gives your company confidence you know you got it right! And in that respect - all you need is any digital avatar where you can adjust it to meet your end market fit profile. So it's not so much about who's avatar is best off the shelf - the solution is maybe more about who has the digital avatar toolset with easy to document adjustment and work flow facility, so you can get exactly what your end market needs. And that you have well trained staff whom feel confident to get their company wide tailoring fit right - given the flexibility of using any digital toolset regularly within your development cycle.
thanks Vad! That's a great solution. How are you saving the avatar in Optitex? OBJ? FBX? I tried to import through the convert avatar tool in Clo and the avatar collapses.
are the clo avatars the same as Alvanon avatars? I thought Alvanon would be much more accurate than Optitex avatars?
thanks Ottoline! How can you adjust posture in the Clo avatars? The Clo toolset seems to be great once the shape is finalized.
See this post where I note most of the relevant video links.
Avatars vary according to their creators. Optitex is more like DAZ and Poser. Which would have me concerned, as tailoring forms are different to avatars. Tailoring forms (Alvanon) are geared to slopers/blocks (their slopers+blocks) which is perhaps too off the shelf for many national sizing fits within a tight clothing category need to maintain some brand differentiation on 'fit' profile for their fashion range. So often it comes down to making your own custom tweaks based on some adjustment even with alvanon.Whatever start-point you choose, you need to appreciate there are different avatar needs across the digital process. It is not one avatar 'type' or manikin fits all the digital design workflow needs - that would be an insane approach given 3D visuals now touch so many commercial end points within the asset stream.
CLO3D avatars are like the Amazon (BodyLabs) the digital avatar company that they CLO3D used to use, which was bought out for $50+ Million (due to the extensive digital patents). So it's more like a hybrid 'averaged' human based on 'anthropometric' database over an approx range of 1500 humans picked to represent this scale from 5% to 95% in human size + body shape. And within that range, character avatar sub-sets of body size (eg: US missy 8,10,12 etc) to their interpretation of the current body standard measures as tabled by the US clothing standards. It works by referencing the nearest database character (anthropometric size) in a digital population. This means as you adjust one dimension the algorithm searches for the typical human size (character within a database of measures) to guide it's returned result, not for just the measure you changed but also those that effect the body shape nearby. This is why you need to approach adjustment as general changes, then refine.
It's suffice to say that across the digital design process you could probably use 3 to 5 types of digital avatar.
Type 1 - is the tailoring sloper former. A dumbed down body shape as tailoring garment former suitable to fit and cut slopers, usually has a bust with filled in cleavage. This means in CLO3D you can draw on the former and unfold pattern pieces into flat pattern pieces - but without ease on the pattern piece. These usually come in a range of partial avatar former shapes geared to the garment type. ie: slacks (lower legs only) , dress (Torso), jacket (Torso and arms extra long) eg: lookstailor.
Type 2 - is the pattern base or house, block tailoring manikin which is often fixed or limited in limb movement. These typically come in two types.
Type 2a - the tailoring manikin with simplified head, hands and feet (usually to national or international clothing sizes) not rigged for complex posing. eg: alvanon
Type 2b - the pattern block avatar, with detailed hands, feet, head, hair and simplified pose rig - a kind of hybrid bastardization of tailoring & presentable manikin model (feet/hands/head are usually common) but generally with a simplified body shape suitable for draping a garment as apposed to a tailoring form, usually with bust and cleavage. And good for early development visual work-in-progress. eg: CLO3D character avatars/ optitex avatars.
Type 3 - Look book character (avatar) models. These are typically market driven or body scan doubles based off a hot-potch of real actors , (eg: 24ten) or geared to a customer 'type', for marketing presentation visual. They might have more complex muscle tone, (DAZ / POSER/Makehuman /Manuel Bastoni blender addon) and not be based on size or anthropocentric standards they may simply reference the target fashion demographic , age, symmetry, asymmetry, etc or if you adjust them - they might be capable of mirroring a market demographic on body shape (shape keys) through simple morph adjustment. eg: apple, pear, straight etc. So these tend to be more complex where a 'Base' rig might drive an entire digital actor character population male and female. And they usually come with highly detailed libraries of textures, hair, skin tones, product accessories so they can be quickly dressed in drag and drop methodology. The rigging can range from pose rigged , to fully animated motion capture cache mesh data, with weight maps transfer for ease of digital posing and animation across a deeper digital production line.
Type 4 - The doppelganger. This is a replacement for digital model photography so it may include 2D images with matching scene backdrops, action poses (eg: sports, yoga, evening wear). In this instance you might factor in A.I. character creation (face/hair/skin tone/body shape) that mirrors your Type 3 avatar base, so you can bash out online web based visuals, via simple load and drape, and then batch render automatically (no humans) from multiple camera views. So in this instance the digital avatar usually comes matched with a smart image for compositing, and 3D scene and lighting, (cryptomatte plates) so that a single garment can be modeled photoreal in 70 fabric colorways on 20 different body or character shapes. So this is all about end visual assets whereby avatars (digital doppelgangers) are geared to high volume visual outputs so the process can be automated in Nuke or any digital CG pipeline, replacing traditional photography . This might even include muscle based parametric models for sports wear.
It's not one avatar - but many. For example you need a tailoring avatar or former to create the garment pattern but you can certainly ditch that the moment you generate the marketing visuals - as you can re-drape and place the garment eg: size 10 onto your photoreal marketing digital size 10 short, straight, curvy, apple, pear, A, V, cornet, lollypop bodyshaped doppelganger or even a hockey team range of body shapes at varying heights to express how well your pattern block development fits a specific target demographic, 'tribe' or audience. Digital workflows open up new ways to approach 'fit' and express style and set the stage for entry earlier into the quality CG visual. One avatar is not going to cut the mustard - I am afraid to say.
First of all, thank you for your post. + thank you all, this is a heated discussion!
@dec312019pixel, would you be able to explain in detail how you created the same avatars using ASTM? Our developers would also like to see the screenshot of the drapes on CLO and Optitex avatars.
Furthermore, it is quite hard to say which avatar is more ACCURATE/ REALISTIC or NOT as the body shape of the avatars determines the drape of the garments. In fact, even though the size of the avatar is the same, the difference in shoulder angles may derive a different fit. Additionally, a garment will fit differently on an avatar with a plump upper body with a smaller cup compared to an avatar with a thin upper body with a bigger cup even if their overall upper body circumference may be the same.
Hope this helps! :)
I was asked, I answered my point of view. Perhaps there are people with such a posture somewhere, but female avatars with any available adjustment have a rounded back (where there are shoulder blades), a strong deflection between the shoulder blade and the waist on the back. And a bulging belly (third month of pregnancy) Adjusting the size of the waist and hips does not exclude pregnancy.))((
So the response is - (and I paraphrase) " ... it's hard to pinpoint what digital avatar is more accurate in body shape to another."
Which I think is a pretty fair comment given the variation of human shape within a size bracket, out there in the market space. One might summarize - that best remedy is then to quickly > "get to know your end customer's variation within fit."
wow! great insights! i had no idea there were so many options to develop a 3D mannequin. thank-you all so much!