 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.
GAH!
Why would you...? no, HOW would you...? damn, 2 MONTHS?! An image file
that's more than 1 GB in size? How the hell do you edit it? What the...
I think I need to sit down.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Are you *kidding* me? This is the most advanced thing I've ever seen!
>>> o_O
>>
>> Clearly you have never used an image manipulation program to its full
>> extent. Even the Gimp has many of the features showcased in that video
>> (although, admittedly, some of them are not as easy to use).
>
> Well, given that I can't actually draw, I guess I don't spend a huge
> amount of time with drawing packages. (Which arguably Photoshop is and
> the GIMP isn't - depending on your definitions.) And it's not like the
> GIMP comes with a manual. It's not even clear what half the buttons are
> meant to DO...
>
> Some things that shock me about this video:
>
> - Tim manages to draw, UNdraw and then redraw lines multiple times.
> Usually in a bitmap editor, all drawing operations are final and cannot
> be undone like that. (That's what's so great about vector images - you
> can edit *everything* and nothing is ever "final".)
You just erase. Since you should be using layers anyway. Erasing on a
layer won't affect the rest behind.
> - He scales objects. This generally isn't possible in bitmap editors
> without absurd levels of highly-visible distortion. (Tim even scales
> individual *parts* of objects - something I've never seen any bitmap
> editor allow.)
Layers.
> - Tim is able to move objects around, place one in front of another, and
> draw stuff behind objects. It's standard in a vector editor, but I've
> never seen it in a bitmap editor.
Layers or even moving a selection (so called 'floating selection',
because it's not merged with the current layer yet).
> - I guess the floor fills kind of give it away that this *must* be a
> bitmap. But how does he manage to fill in all that counter-shading and
> never accidentally draw over the outlining? Is he just extremely
> skillful, or is the software assisting him somehow?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but: using "replace color"
instead of a brush could help. Even Paintbrush in Windows 3.1 had
something like that, and it was removed in MS Paint later. You can paint
all over the image with color X, but only areas of color Y will be affected.
> - How on earth does he do the text like that? When *I* want to outline
> something, I have to sit there for hours drawing the outlines in by
> hand. He appears to have some kind of automation that does it for him...
> And not to mention all the squishing and bending of the text, and the
> multiple levels of gradients and...
Just a panel with dozens of options :)
I used to have Paint Shop Pro 5 (that's from 1996 i think). To do text
with outline, first I added some plain old text. That added text to the
current layer and selected it (selection shape had antialias too). Then
I created a new layer *behind*, enlarged selection (selection |
transform | enlarge IIRC), and filled the selection with another color.
Obviously not as easy as on any modern software, but I could do it anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 47cbf253$1@news.povray.org...
>> I've heard of layers - but it never occurred to me that you could use them
>> for *composing* images. I always throught of them as simply a way of
>> merging two images into one. (E.g., so you could cut out part of one
>> photograph to insert it into another one.)
>
> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.
>
> http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm
Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique. Why give up
the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoes skynetbe> wrote:
> Why give up
> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?
Why not? Relieves stress?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If all of the complex manipulations seen here are really done with
> layers... hmm, it must take quite a bit of planning to make sure
> everything is in the correct layer and not accidentally paint yourself
> into a corner.
Humans can make mistakes, sure.
http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20080216
http://www.cad-forums.com/showpost.php?p=2554424&postcount=31
>>> - How the heck does he do that thing with the floorboards? And the
>>> shading for the shadow in the doorway? I've never seen anything so
>>> advanced, ever!
>>
>> Layers, transparency.
>
> Well, sure - but how does he make the shadow edges soft? That must
> involve some pretty special shading technology. Most software I've seen
> will do simple linear colour gradients, but not complex shadow outlines
> like that.
If the shadow is on its own layer, you could blur it when you're done :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>> Here you go: an image made using 15000 layers.
>
> GAH!
>
> Why would you...? no, HOW would you...? damn, 2 MONTHS?! An image file
> that's more than 1 GB in size? How the hell do you edit it? What the...
> I think I need to sit down.
>
Apparently there aren't really 15000 at a time (that would need some
terabytes of RAM). He used separate image *files*, each with some
hundred layers, then put those together.
Also, the 1GB file is the final bitmap (probably compressed). The
photoshop file is probably *many* gigabytes, to keep all the layers
independent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> damn, 2 MONTHS?!
Uh, no. Where did you read that? It says eleven months.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47cc1c7a$1@news.povray.org...
> Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
> reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique. Why give up
> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?
I guess it's more an historical thing. Bert Monroy is a digital art pioneer
and he's been famous for a couple of decades now for his photorealistic
work. He's probably one of the first computer artists to have a real
following. This kind of piece is really a showcase for his
Photoshop/Illustrator skills (and books, lectures, TV shows etc.).
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Other than the strange personal fun of the author, I can't see any valid
> reason to do that kind of work using that kind of technique. Why give up
> the flexibility of 3D CG, or the simplicity and feel of hand-painting ?
To get high on digg?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:44:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> ...and then I remember that I can't actually draw, and just having
> similar software and hardware to Tim wouldn't magically enable me to be
> a supreme artist like him. And I'm probably too stupid to figure out a
> package like Photoshop anyway.
Nobody becomes an expert overnight. It takes time and practice.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
