gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #220 on: March 19, 2017, 12:49:55 PM » |
|
What Makes A Good Character Design?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #221 on: April 07, 2017, 09:14:55 AM » |
|
The Future of Art Production in Games
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProgramGamer
|
|
« Reply #224 on: April 21, 2017, 08:09:50 PM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #225 on: May 04, 2017, 08:28:36 PM » |
|
Low Poly Modeling: Style Through Economy
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JobLeonard
|
|
« Reply #226 on: May 05, 2017, 03:38:49 AM » |
|
Ooh, this looks interesting, and I don't even do 3D modelling!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pfotegeist
Guest
|
|
« Reply #227 on: May 05, 2017, 08:04:07 AM » |
|
I read from Andrew Loomis' figure drawing (1941) book about how reducing complexity in shadows somehow looks better then attempting to draw perfect 3dimensional shading with inaccurate anatomy. The artist implied they didn't really know why (going by my memory). This is like a confirmation. If your 3d doesn't make high poly look real, make it stylish and it'll look better.
designing a low poly style still requires some practice. ultra realism generated on the fly is a matter of time if we'll take the future for granted... shaders are still an obstacle in 3d visuals but maybe one day they won't be.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JobLeonard
|
|
« Reply #228 on: May 06, 2017, 01:17:44 AM » |
|
The desire for ultra realism is largely motivated by a naive (implicit) assumption that media should get "out of the way" of the things they are trying to depict, i.e. a landscape painting is trying to depict a landscape, so the landscape should look as convincing as possible and the paint should get out of the way.
But that assumption does not hold in practice at all
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #229 on: May 17, 2017, 06:20:07 PM » |
|
Getting Started with Character Morph Targets | Live Training | Unreal Engine
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #230 on: May 20, 2017, 11:47:35 AM » |
|
A.B.I.torial 13: Mortal Kombat X's Animation SUCKS
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kinnas
|
|
« Reply #231 on: May 20, 2017, 12:49:04 PM » |
|
This is a cool thread, one day I hope to contribute but right now I'm posting to follow it. Thanks for all the useful links
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #232 on: May 21, 2017, 02:22:15 PM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Torchkas
|
|
« Reply #233 on: May 21, 2017, 03:00:28 PM » |
|
red and cyan are actually opposite colors. idk who got the idea that red is the opposite of green when red and green are both independent colors in our retina. The RYB space is also not an actually valid space in paint, the correct one is Magenta Yellow Cyan, which is what your ink toners are set to. if I recall the reason for cyan being called blue and magenta being called red is that they actually used to have those names, our current blue would be called indigo and our current red would be called red-orange or blood orange. In RGB space, the space around orange is more compressed so small changes mean big impact on human perception. this is actually a good thing to take from it though. for non-linear color gradient mappings you could totally make your own, but you need to still be aware that it's not something you should actually calculate things like color blending with since you'd simply miss out on a lot of hues.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #234 on: May 21, 2017, 04:03:51 PM » |
|
If you have study color spaces you would know that it's never that trivial, especially that magenta and white are not "color" that exist in reality (not an electromagnetic wavelength like actual light). After my art schools my belief in color has been unredeemly broken, it's like getting out the matrix. So yeah green vs red is acceptable in "perceptual" color space, those thing didn't come out from nothing, color studies is a rabbit hole that just never end.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #235 on: May 30, 2017, 03:18:55 PM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JobLeonard
|
|
« Reply #236 on: May 30, 2017, 11:44:13 PM » |
|
So yeah green vs red is acceptable in "perceptual" color space those thing didn't come out from nothing No, those things came out of ignorance. Sincerely, a very, very annoyed colorblind person.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #237 on: May 31, 2017, 10:41:40 AM » |
|
So yeah green vs red is acceptable in "perceptual" color space those thing didn't come out from nothing No, those things came out of ignorance. Sincerely, a very, very annoyed colorblind person. You must be kidding right? I put perceptual in quote too to distinguish with physiological, which is what you are alluding to
Learn More about Game Animation - Extra Frames
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #238 on: May 31, 2017, 10:49:19 AM » |
|
idk who got the idea that red is the opposite of green when red and green are both independent colors in our retina.
Addendum: they are opposite in SUBSTRACTIVE type of color space, while the retina operate on ADDITIVE type of color space. I you mix red and green painting according to their WEIGHTED coloring power you have neutral grey (if it's not weighted properly you obtain brown or dark olive, ie too much red or green). I have done it in art schools. It's because neither the green nor the red is reflected (absorbed by the material), green is from yellow and blue so there is nothing back to reflect except intensity. Color also don't exist, white, magenta, has no wavelength associated with them, it's all an illusion, light is electromagnetic wave. Now before people call for ignorance
|
|
« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 10:54:25 AM by gimymblert »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JobLeonard
|
|
« Reply #239 on: May 31, 2017, 01:43:15 PM » |
|
You must be kidding right? No, I'm not kidding, and you're somehow managing to act privileged on the topic of colour perception... and don't try to use your arts education to appeal to authority, in case you forgot: I also have a bachelor in fine artsI put perceptual in quote too to distinguish with physiological, which is what you are alluding to No I'm not Jim... Think about this a bit more: perceptual as perceived by whom? "Perceptual" implies the subjective perception of colour, regardless of what is the cause of this perception - be that language not having the words for a colour or secretly having four colour cones. So saying that my colourblind vision doesn't affect what should be considered a sensible perceptual colour combination because the cause of it is physiological makes no sense. Saying that "green" and "red" are good contrasts assumes "normal" color vision, and claiming it is "acceptable" when 5% of all people can't distinguish them is ignorant.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|