[–] jobes 2 points (+2|-0)

The hair just isn't quite right. Pretty good sub-surface scattering for the skin and the eye looks pretty good, just the lashes and the unnecessary depth of field effect stand out to me.

I've been a professional computer graphics engineer for over a decade and that's what I notice.

[–] Dii_Casses [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

What's off about the lashes?

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

Half the lashes are caught in the DoF, I always question when unnecessary post effects are added. The whole thing is amazingly low poly, but the animation of the lashes is far too rigid. It looks like the hair you'd have on a broom, not on your eyes. It needs some minor addition of soft body physics. It just looks very non-human with how they move.

They're also too thick and opaque. I can understand the need for emphasis when focusing on the eye, so I don't consider that a big fault

The skin had the odd smoothness that is an artifact of CGI.

An interesting thing about human skin is that it is covered in countless tiny, nearly invisible hairs. This is one of the reasons it is difficult to get fingerprints off of human skin. Most CGI skin just isn't fuzzy enough for someone with sharp eyes.

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

There are so many hacks for rendering skin. Truly modelling the microfacets for specular reflection is not possible in realtime, and it's not worth it for most animation. The most common simple method for CG skin in games is to render it first with high sharp details, write out every pixel that is skin to the stencil buffer, then do basically a blur + reddening pass if you have thickness information. Hair can be done similarly, but really requires a sharp anisotropic pass instead of blur to be done right