3D Human Anatomy

dreatern

Hey guys, just to share that ( I've searched and found nothing about it here, if this was already posted, please delete the topic)

http://www.biodigitalhuman.com/ can also be used as an google chrome extension HTML5 + WegGL FREE ^^

Bigjohn

There are other sites like this, I've seen it before. It's a really cool idea. Maybe one day someone will make a decent version. But all the ones I've seen are horrid. I'm worried that people who are starting out will use those, thinking they're getting correct anatomy, but instead will get incredibly inaccurate stuff that will take them years to untangle.

These sites are a nice proof of concept, but nothing more. The anatomy is really bad. I wouldn't recommend anyone to rely on those.

Kot_Leopold

+10 Bigjohn! This is exactly what I've been saying about all those "3D anatomy" sites but some people disagreed. So be it.

claydough

agree with John
there is a mountain of Bad anatomy on the internet.

http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryReferenceAnatomy
Rey Bustos page found there has nice flash overlays ( even if the actual drawings r crude... the resulting muscalature is revealing )

for skinning joint placement reference: ( for game animation: general articulation can be more important then academic anatomy )
http://hippydrome.com/


http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryTopology

My favorite Anatomy reference is Anatomy for the Artist by Sarah Simblet:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Anatomy_for_the_artist.html?id=xcGhAAAACAAJ

nofools

There are some sites out there that don't have the most accurate information. On the other hand their are other sites that have sufficiently accurate information. In the end it is up to the user to choose the correct place for him.
I think experts, should also contribute a little for instance when they see a fake website, which have false knowledge on it, they should tell their friends on facebook or twitter or other social media and play their part.

crazyfool

Andrew Loomis and giovanni Civardi books work best for me.....oh and google

Illusions

dreatern wrote: »

Hey guys, just to share that ( I've searched and found nothing about it here, if this was already posted, please delete the topic)

http://www.biodigitalhuman.com/ can also be used as an google chrome extension HTML5 + WegGL FREE ^^

I never thought I'd see the day that someone on Polycount would post something I worked on.

Bigjohn wrote: »

There are other sites like this, I've seen it before. It's a really cool idea. Maybe one day someone will make a decent version. But all the ones I've seen are horrid.

I'm worried that people who are starting out will use those, thinking they're getting correct anatomy, but instead will get incredibly inaccurate stuff that will take them years to untangle.

Any particular feedback you and others are willing to give, especially on the BioDigital Human, would be greatly appreciated, as I could probably forward it to my former coworkers (or even point them to this thread). Unless something major has changed since I worked for them, most of the feedback we had been getting on the BioDigital Human was from doctors, medical students, and other people in the medical, science, and healthcare community, so a fresh batch of perspective and critique from other artists would be good.

These sites are a nice proof of concept, but nothing more. The anatomy is really bad. I wouldn't recommend anyone to rely on those.

One of the things to note is that, at least with the BioDigital Human, the main focus, and the reviews and critiques it has been tailored to (or its main audience), would be anatomy for doctors, medical students, scientists, etc. so it doesn't quite have the same focus as Anatomy for the Artist that claydough mentioned.

Bigjohn

Ahh I see. It hasn't occurred to me that this is primarily for medical students, although it should have.

For artists, the main problem is proportions. Things look like they, overall, originate and insert in the proper places (and not always), but the shape in between is off. It makes the overall proportions really off. Some muscles insert on the proper bone, but at the wrong place, which also messes up the proportions.

Also on proportions, if you look at the skull for instance, it looks like the jaw came from a very young person, and the cranium from someone older. Which makes the proportions of the head look awkward in comparison to the rest of the figure. The skeleton itself has some really "blurry" shapes in it, it could use more detail. This is especially apparent on the humerus, where the groove where the ulna sits is almost non-existent. It's hard to study where everything is like that.

On muscles there isn't enough attention given as to what overlaps what. So you have a general sense of origin and insertion, but it's hard to tell what the muscle is really doing. This is really apparent on the pectorals. Another one is the serratus, where they don't even connect to the ribs, and their relationship to the latissimus is not apparent.

I could go on for quite a while about this

And please, I hope nobody is offended by this. It's just that anatomy is something I'm really passionate about.