 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, I just watched this:
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php/xmas2006
Two rather obvious questions immediately throw themselves at me.
1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
2. What the hell is the software he's using?! It seems to have almost
unlimited capabilities...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
Heh, it's a pretty expensive beast he has.
> 2. What the hell is the software he's using?! It seems to have almost
> unlimited capabilities...
Photoshop CS2, like the FAQ says.
Lots of people get pirated Photoshop and never use features much beyond
what Paint has... But it has way more features.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:40:51 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> OK, I just watched this:
>
> http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php/xmas2006
>
> Two rather obvious questions immediately throw themselves at me.
>
> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
Touchscreen technology has been around for quite a while now....
> 2. What the hell is the software he's using?! It seems to have almost
> unlimited capabilities...
Got me, you could ask in his forum....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
There are graphics tablets which can show the image.
> 2. What the hell is the software he's using?! It seems to have almost
> unlimited capabilities...
Ever heard of this software called Photoshop?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
> There are graphics tablets which can show the image.
I don't know which tablet that is, but could be this one:
http://www.wacom.com/cintiq/
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
>
> Heh, it's a pretty expensive beast he has.
Here you go:
http://www.cad-forums.com/showthread.php?p=2530617
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
>
> Heh, it's a pretty expensive beast he has.
>
>> 2. What the hell is the software he's using?! It seems to have almost
>> unlimited capabilities...
>
> Photoshop CS2, like the FAQ says.
>
> Lots of people get pirated Photoshop and never use features much beyond
> what Paint has... But it has way more features.
Well, whuddya know:
Exif IFD0
* Picture Orientation = normal (1)
* X-Resolution = 3000000/10000 = 300
* Y-Resolution = 3000000/10000 = 300
* X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
* Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
* Last Modified Date/Time = 2006:12:22 22:16:30
Wow. Surprised he didn't use Adobe Illustrator, which one would think
would be more suited to this kind of work, but then again, I think Scott
Adams mentioned he uses Photoshop with the same type of drawing tablet.
So, apparently it's a "standard" among comic artists.
I'll have to watch the vid at home ...And, yeah .. Wacom makes tablets
with a built-in monitor... Kinda neat, But my Intuos postage stamp (6x4,
I think?) fits my budget better. I've done some line-arty type stuff in
PS before, using paths. Someone mentioned that PS has more features than
people generally use. Very true, I usually only use it for processing
and adjusting photos. CS3 has an even more extensive feature set (I use
this because my camera (40D) is only supported in the new Camera Raw.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
>
> There are graphics tablets which can show the image.
Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a
high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
>> 2. What the hell is the software he's using?! It seems to have almost
>> unlimited capabilities...
>
> Ever heard of this software called Photoshop?
Yes. [Although obviously I've never seen it, only heard that it exists.
It seems more like a legend than a real commercial product...]
I thought it only does bitmap manipulations though. The software he's
using seems to be vector-based.
(But that's the puzzling thing - some of the things he's doing with it
aren't possible with vector graphics either, so... hmm, I'm confused.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> I thought it only does bitmap manipulations though. The software he's
> using seems to be vector-based.
Nope, he's just using a ridiculously-high image size.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Yes. [Although obviously I've never seen it, only heard that it exists.
> It seems more like a legend than a real commercial product...]
Go download a free trial of it. Go to Adobe, now! Download DOWNLOAD
*DOWNLOAD*!!! It'll last 30 days, then you'll be hooked.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I thought it only does bitmap manipulations though. The software he's
> using seems to be vector-based.
It does some vector stuff, and some bitmap stuff. Shapes and paths are
the vector bits.
Also, with a pressure sensitive tablet, it can be a lot like painting.
The harder you press, the thicker the line, but all of these can be
changed. My tablet is even tilt sensitive, which with a little skill can
be used for calligraphic strokes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Go download a free trial of it. Go to Adobe, now! Download DOWNLOAD
> *DOWNLOAD*!!! It'll last 30 days, then you'll be hooked.
I went online and had a look at the prices of various Adobe and Wacom
products.
And then ran away. And hid. In a dark corner.
Damn, that's some expensive stuff... And I can't even draw! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I thought it only does bitmap manipulations though. The software he's
>> using seems to be vector-based.
>
> Nope, he's just using a ridiculously-high image size.
Woah...! o_O
You mean he managed to scale, rotate, bend and alter *bitmaps* and not
get distortion? That's pretty unbelievable!
But then, the whole clip is pretty unbelievable... Seriously, it looks
like SciFi. I had no idea that technology like this was commercially
available. I mean, DAMN...!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Having got over just how amazing his hardware and software is, several
other facts strike me:
1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes
for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the
finished image looks so easy...)
[I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
Now I see what an absurd idea that is.]
2. He can do stuff with pencil and paper that I couldn't do in my
wildest daydreams. I mean, if you left me in a room with a pad of paper
for 20 years, I still couldn't produce anything approaching this level
of sophistication.
3. He seems to draw and re-draw and constantly tweak everything way more
than I would have imagined. I assumed he was one of these people who can
just draw a line and do it perfectly every time. But no, actually he
seems to spend quite a lot of time adjusting each part to get it just
so. No wonder the final image looks so damn fine!
4. Woah, that's A LOT of levels of shading!
5. There are quite a few parts where he's not *drawing* anything, just
pressing buttons on the UI. It's hard to see what he's doing. But the
software seems to have some impressive area colouring capabilities!
6. This guy clearly has more talent in his left toenail than I have in
my entire body. Even if I somehow purchased the hardware and software
that he has, I wouldn't know what to do with it. Just... wow. I should
go away and be quiet now...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> [I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
> Now I see what an absurd idea that is.]
Oh cmon, you don't need to have CAD's artistic quality. Can you draw
comics as good as xkcd?
> 3. He seems to draw and re-draw and constantly tweak everything way more
> than I would have imagined. I assumed he was one of these people who can
> just draw a line and do it perfectly every time. But no, actually he
> seems to spend quite a lot of time adjusting each part to get it just
> so. No wonder the final image looks so damn fine!
Well, that was another comment he got often.
"You're a damned perfectionist you know that...?"
> 4. Woah, that's A LOT of levels of shading!
Lots of people noticed details while watching the video that they had
never noticed on the comics themselves.
> 6. This guy clearly has more talent in his left toenail than I have in
> my entire body. Even if I somehow purchased the hardware and software
> that he has, I wouldn't know what to do with it. Just... wow. I should
> go away and be quiet now...
Challenge him in Haskell programming?
Different people have *different* skills.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Having got over just how amazing his hardware and software is, several
> other facts strike me:
>
> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes
> for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the
> finished image looks so easy...)
200 hours? That doesn't seem right. 60x speed-up would be 20 hours worth...
> [I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
> Now I see what an absurd idea that is.]
>
> 2. He can do stuff with pencil and paper that I couldn't do in my
> wildest daydreams. I mean, if you left me in a room with a pad of paper
> for 20 years, I still couldn't produce anything approaching this level
> of sophistication.
>
> 3. He seems to draw and re-draw and constantly tweak everything way more
> than I would have imagined. I assumed he was one of these people who can
> just draw a line and do it perfectly every time. But no, actually he
> seems to spend quite a lot of time adjusting each part to get it just
> so. No wonder the final image looks so damn fine!
>
> 4. Woah, that's A LOT of levels of shading!
>
> 5. There are quite a few parts where he's not *drawing* anything, just
> pressing buttons on the UI. It's hard to see what he's doing. But the
> software seems to have some impressive area colouring capabilities!
>
> 6. This guy clearly has more talent in his left toenail than I have in
> my entire body. Even if I somehow purchased the hardware and software
> that he has, I wouldn't know what to do with it. Just... wow. I should
> go away and be quiet now...
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>> [I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
>> Now I see what an absurd idea that is.]
>
> Oh cmon, you don't need to have CAD's artistic quality. Can you draw
> comics as good as xkcd?
You laugh, but take a closer look for a moment.
XKCD is a comic featuring only stick figures. With NO FREAKIN' FACES!
And yet, they manage to convey emotion. All using nothing but body
language. From bodies make out of black lines on a white background.
If you stop and think about all that for a moment, you'll realise that
actually, XKCD is *way* harder than it looks!
> Well, that was another comment he got often.
> "You're a damned perfectionist you know that...?"
LOL! Well, the final results *do* look pretty damn good, no? ;-)
[Actually, it's quite interesting to compare, say, today's comic to
comic #1. There's quite a bit difference in art style. It changed over
the years, really gradually, but if you compare the two endpoints it's
quite striking. Oh yeah, and Lilah in particular looks a lot less geeky
than she used to...]
>> 4. Woah, that's A LOT of levels of shading!
>
> Lots of people noticed details while watching the video that they had
> never noticed on the comics themselves.
I had noticed 2 levels of shading. Apparently there's actually 3 -
there's a really thin line of light as well as the more obvious dark
patches. And the shading on the tree is just... wow.
>> 6. This guy clearly has more talent in his left toenail than I have in
>> my entire body. Even if I somehow purchased the hardware and software
>> that he has, I wouldn't know what to do with it. Just... wow. I should
>> go away and be quiet now...
>
> Challenge him in Haskell programming?
>
> Different people have *different* skills.
Hmm... I suspect I might get 0wned at that too. :-S
Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
look very stupid.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes
>> for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the
>> finished image looks so easy...)
>
> 200 hours? That doesn't seem right. 60x speed-up would be 20 hours worth...
Yeah, I think you might be right. 600x would be a freakin' BLUR... I
must be mis-remembering this stuff. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> OK, I just watched this:
>
> http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php/xmas2006
>
> Two rather obvious questions immediately throw themselves at me.
>
> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
That's a Wacom Cintiq. ( http://www.wacom.com )
I was going to get one but they were just starting to put out consumer
TabletPCs at the time, so I went with the portability.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
47c861a5$1@news.povray.org...
> Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a
> high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
About 2500-3500 $.
Actually I was "using" one a couple of hours ago. It's not mine
unfortunately, and the guy who has it (a professional graphic designer) uses
it in combination with a regular screen. What happened was that I was
showing him some modelling tricks with C4D (on the regular screen) and I
somehow lost track of the mouse pointer... which was now on the tablet. This
is really impressive tech.
> Yes. [Although obviously I've never seen it, only heard that it exists. It
> seems more like a legend than a real commercial product...]
Like Mike said, just download the trial version. If you've never seen a
killer app (apart Excel) that's the one. Also, if you can convince your
bosses to buy you a license, Adobe allows you to have a second installation
on your own computer.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a
>> high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
>
> About 2500-3500 $.
*whimpers quietly*
At least this time I can tell myself that I wouldn't know what to do
with one anyway...
> This is really impressive tech.
No kidding.
>> Yes. [Although obviously I've never seen it, only heard that it exists. It
>> seems more like a legend than a real commercial product...]
>
> Like Mike said, just download the trial version. If you've never seen a
> killer app (apart Excel) that's the one.
Heh. I might like it too much. ;-)
> Also, if you can convince your
> bosses to buy you a license, Adobe allows you to have a second installation
> on your own computer.
Ooo, cool. Cos our lab could really do with a high-end image editor...
uh... hmm... maybe I could make it more enterprisy?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:55:04 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
> look very stupid.
Nonsense. I used to play chess competitively (ie, I played tournament
chess). I wasn't very good, and I lost a lot. Didn't make me look
stupid in the least, just less skilled than other people.
Hint: There's always someone who knows more. Anyone who says they know
it all is either lying or stupid - or frequently both.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
47c875a8$1@news.povray.org...
> Ooo, cool. Cos our lab could really do with a high-end image editor...
> uh... hmm... maybe I could make it more enterprisy?
That's more or less what I did. There was some small budget allocated for
software and I was stuck using either Micrografx Publisher (completely
outdated) or the Gimp (the horror, the horror) anytime I had to edit images
at work. So I asked for Photoshop...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a
>>> high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
>>
>> About 2500-3500 $.
>
> *whimpers quietly*
>
> At least this time I can tell myself that I wouldn't know what to do
> with one anyway...
That's for the high-end one. Myself, I want one of THESE puppies:
http://www.tabletpc2.com/Major_WOW_Factor-Fujitsu_Lifebook_T2010_Tablet_PC-Article700230807.html
Current list price around $1600.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
>> look very stupid.
>
> Nonsense. I used to play chess competitively (ie, I played tournament
> chess). I wasn't very good, and I lost a lot. Didn't make me look
> stupid in the least, just less skilled than other people.
Question: Have you ever, at any time, won a chess match?
I haven't. Even against a computer. I'm that bad at it.
And you know what? One time somebody "challenged" me about the chemical
symbol for Tin. Well *obviously* that can't even change. How could I
*possibly* loose? But loose I did. (Sb isn't Tin. It's the one right
next to it. Only 1 letter and one proton different. Damn it!)
> Hint: There's always someone who knows more. Anyone who says they know
> it all is either lying or stupid - or frequently both.
Like So Greats said, "The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know
nothing."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:37:31 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
>>> look very stupid.
>>
>> Nonsense. I used to play chess competitively (ie, I played tournament
>> chess). I wasn't very good, and I lost a lot. Didn't make me look
>> stupid in the least, just less skilled than other people.
>
> Question: Have you ever, at any time, won a chess match?
Yes, but that's not the point.
> I haven't. Even against a computer. I'm that bad at it.
>
> And you know what? One time somebody "challenged" me about the chemical
> symbol for Tin. Well *obviously* that can't even change. How could I
> *possibly* loose? But loose I did. (Sb isn't Tin. It's the one right
> next to it. Only 1 letter and one proton different. Damn it!)
<shrug> Start talking about object instantiation in Haskell, and you're
over my head. Different people know different things.
>> Hint: There's always someone who knows more. Anyone who says they
>> know it all is either lying or stupid - or frequently both.
>
> Like So Greats said, "The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know
> nothing."
Yep.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Having got over just how amazing his hardware and software is, several
> other facts strike me:
>
> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes
> for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the
> finished image looks so easy...)
600% so two hours in total
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Like So Greats said, "The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know
> nothing."
>
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
(long, but great read)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> (long, but great read)
Yeah, I've seen it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>>> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes
>>> for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the
>>> finished image looks so easy...)
>>
>> 200 hours? That doesn't seem right. 60x speed-up would be 20 hours
>> worth...
>
> Yeah, I think you might be right. 600x would be a freakin' BLUR... I
> must be mis-remembering this stuff. ;-)
>
I think it was 6x
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 1. This is speeded up 600 times?
Now you don't even know your percentages. 600% is not the same thing
as 600 times.
> [I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
The hardest part of making a web comic is to get good ideas.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:25:25 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> [I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
>
> The hardest part of making a web comic is to get good ideas.
Actually, the hardest part of making a comic (web or not) is to get good
ideas. I don't imagine that the medium makes it any easier or harder.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> 1. Where the hell did he get a computer screen you can draw on??
>>
>> There are graphics tablets which can show the image.
>
> Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a
> high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
You can get a tablet PC that's got a touchscreen (wacom graphics tablet)
built into the screen. I have one. It's very nice.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>>>> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20
>>>> minutes for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time!
>>>> (And the finished image looks so easy...)
>>>
>>> 200 hours? That doesn't seem right. 60x speed-up would be 20 hours
>>> worth...
>>
>> Yeah, I think you might be right. 600x would be a freakin' BLUR... I
>> must be mis-remembering this stuff. ;-)
>>
> I think it was 6x
Yep, 600% was what he said ... I've been watching the video.
After watching the first video, I noticed a few things
* This is actually pretty bare-bones photoshop usage. He uses all
brushes, layers, and an occasional scale operation, nothing too fancy.
* The swatches file is a very nice trick :)
* It amazes me how he seems to get it right the first time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Raiford wrote:
> Yep, 600% was what he said ... I've been watching the video.
>
> After watching the first video, I noticed a few things
>
> * This is actually pretty bare-bones photoshop usage. He uses all
> brushes, layers, and an occasional scale operation, nothing too fancy.
>
> * The swatches file is a very nice trick :)
>
> * It amazes me how he seems to get it right the first time.
After the second video:
* Another neat trick, having a file with various facial features at the
ready.
* Aagain, pretty basic photoshopping.. Setting the text, and using the
layer blending attributes... The thing I didn't know you could do was
warp the text like that ... I'll have to play, now. :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Michael Raiford wrote:
> > * This is actually pretty bare-bones photoshop usage. He uses all
> > brushes, layers, and an occasional scale operation, nothing too fancy.
yes, indeed. The only real source of amazement here is his fancy input toy...
> * Another neat trick, having a file with various facial features at the
> ready.
I thought only He-man animators in the past used such cheap trick! ;)
> The thing I didn't know you could do was
> warp the text like that...
even the open-source inkscape warps the text. Speaking of which, this was done
with no fancy input other than the mouse... inkscape's caligraphic drawing tool
is getting better by the day... much better than GIMP's... :)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'face.png' (136 KB)
Preview of image 'face.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The hardest part of making a web comic is to get good ideas.
Indeed. And given how much I suck at having ideas, I think I should just
forget the whole thing right now...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You can get a tablet PC that's got a touchscreen
I think that the difference between a tablet PC with touchscreen and
a graphics tablet with an LCD is that the latter is much more accurate
and has extra properties (such as detecting pressing strength and tilting).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You can get a tablet PC that's got a touchscreen
>
> I think that the difference between a tablet PC with touchscreen and
> a graphics tablet with an LCD is that the latter is much more accurate
> and has extra properties (such as detecting pressing strength and tilting).
If the tabletpc has a wacom digitizer (and most do), it has pressure
sensitivity. Not as much as the Cintiq; 256 vs. 1024...and if one had
tilt sensing I would be all *sha-wing!* and buy it.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> If the tabletpc has a wacom digitizer (and most do),
Mine does, not that I do enough artwork for it to make a difference. The
protective glass is thick enough that I'd expect it would be an effort
to get used to doing it for art. It's almost difficult to pick out
letters on the on-screen keyboard reliably. You have to watch the cursor.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:47c88e7e$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:25:25 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
> >> [I was actually toying with the idea of making a web comic of my own.
> >
> > The hardest part of making a web comic is to get good ideas.
>
> Actually, the hardest part of making a comic (web or not) is to get good
> ideas. I don't imagine that the medium makes it any easier or harder.
>
For me the hardest part is finding time to do it. I have many projects in my
head and nothing to show for it :-P
--
- Nekar X -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> The hardest part of making a web comic is to get good ideas.
>
> Indeed. And given how much I suck at having ideas, I think I should just
> forget the whole thing right now...
>
Like anything else, it just takes practice. The more you do it, the
better you are at it.
Besides, looking through the archive of Ctrl-Alt-Del, the first few
months weren't worth reading, anyway. He took some time to find his
stride; what makes you think you wouldn't, too?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Michael Raiford wrote:
> After watching the first video, I noticed a few things
>
> * This is actually pretty bare-bones photoshop usage. He uses all
> brushes, layers, and an occasional scale operation, nothing too fancy.
Are you *kidding* me? This is the most advanced thing I've ever seen! o_O
> * It amazes me how he seems to get it right the first time.
The thing that struck me is how often he redraws stuff...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
47cbc398$1@news.povray.org...
> Are you *kidding* me? This is the most advanced thing I've ever seen! o_O
You should replace o_O by (oYo)
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > * This is actually pretty bare-bones photoshop usage. He uses all
> > brushes, layers, and an occasional scale operation, nothing too fancy.
> 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).
--
- Warp
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".)
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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?
- 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!
- 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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Go download a free trial of it. Go to Adobe, now! Download DOWNLOAD
> *DOWNLOAD*!!! It'll last 30 days, then you'll be hooked.
Actually... apparently I bought my dad a copy of Adobe Photoshop
Elements 5 and Adobe Promier for his birthday one year. I'd forgotten
about that!
[And so had he. The software *demands* SSE2 and refuses to operate
without it, so he's never been able to run it. Until now...]
I'll have to go round his house and have a play with it.
In other news, I see that for ~£60 I can buy a Wacom Bambo in A6 size.
(Uh, why would you bother?) For something like IIRC ~£120 I can buy an
A5 one that comes bundled with a copy of Photoshop Elements. I'm
momentarily tempted...
...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.
[You might recall I gave up on 3D Studio Max - reputedly the most
powerful 3D software ever written in human history - because I couldn't
figure out how to make it draw something other than spheres of cylinders.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:44:58 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>In other news, I see that for ~£60 I can buy a Wacom Bambo in A6 size.
>(Uh, why would you bother?) For something like IIRC ~£120 I can buy an
>A5 one that comes bundled with a copy of Photoshop Elements. I'm
>momentarily tempted...
A couple of years ago I bought a Wacom A3 graphics tablet on eBay and found that
I liked it a lot even though I can't draw. I then bought a cheep one from
Maplins for about £17 on special offer, so that I could take it to work and not
worry about loosing it. Tablets are great not just for drawing but if you suffer
from RSI they reduce the strain and are good for modifying image maps.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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.)
Photoshop is not a "drawing package". AFAIK it doesn't have vector
graphics support, for instance.
> And it's not like the GIMP comes with a manual.
Where did you get that notion? The gimp has a complete help file system,
and the same documentation is available online as well:
http://docs.gimp.org/en/
> - 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.
Ever heard of the concept of layers? If you haven't, you should really
learn to use them. They help you making new additions without changing
anything of the existing image. Your additions are overlayed over the
rest. Layers are also the thing which help you move individual elements
of the image around without moving the entire image.
> (That's what's so great about vector images - you
> can edit *everything* and nothing is ever "final".)
He is not using vector images.
> - He scales objects. This generally isn't possible in bitmap editors
> without absurd levels of highly-visible distortion.
Of course it's possible. You simply need a very large resolution for
the image in order to avoid pixelation.
> (Tim even scales
> individual *parts* of objects - something I've never seen any bitmap
> editor allow.)
Read my lips: 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.
Read my lips: Layers.
It's a very common technique in bitmap editors.
> - 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?
Layers and layer masks.
> - 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.
Being a POV-Ray user you should know what alpha transparency means.
> - How on earth does he do the text like that?
Photoshop has quite advanced text manipulation capabilities. It handles
them as vector graphics (probably one of the few true vector drawing
features in the program) until they are "burnt" into the final bitmap
layer.
With Photoshop you can distort the text in many ways, add outlines,
shadows, colorations, etc. The gimp has many such features as well
(although it's not as advanced in this respect).
> When *I* want to outline
> something, I have to sit there for hours drawing the outlines in by
> hand.
If you are talking about the text, he doesn't need to outline anything.
As for outlining elements in a bitmap image, Photoshop has quite
advanced selection tools which make the task much easier.
> And not to mention all the squishing and bending of the text, and the
> multiple levels of gradients and...
The text is handled as vectors until burnt into the final image.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And it's not like the GIMP comes with a manual.
>
> Where did you get that notion? The gimp has a complete help file system,
> and the same documentation is available online as well:
OK, well then I just learned something...
>> - 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.
>
> Ever heard of the concept of layers? If you haven't, you should really
> learn to use them. They help you making new additions without changing
> anything of the existing image. Your additions are overlayed over the
> rest. Layers are also the thing which help you move individual elements
> of the image around without moving the entire image.
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.)
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.
>> (That's what's so great about vector images - you
>> can edit *everything* and nothing is ever "final".)
>
> He is not using vector images.
Indeed. What I way saying is that this is why *I* prefer vector
graphics. I make so many mistakes, it's nice having a system where
anything can be undone or modified later. But it doesn't seem to hinder
Tim in any way...
>> - He scales objects. This generally isn't possible in bitmap editors
>> without absurd levels of highly-visible distortion.
>
> Of course it's possible. You simply need a very large resolution for
> the image in order to avoid pixelation.
Well, it would probably work if the image was 10,000 pixels square. But
that sounds a litle infeasible. (OTOH, the final image is quite low
resolution, so maybe it's doable...)
>> (Tim even scales
>> individual *parts* of objects - something I've never seen any bitmap
>> editor allow.)
>
> Read my lips: Layers.
Lilah appears to be in a single layer. (He moves her around as one
item.) And yet, he was able to scale just one leg. How do layers help here?
>> - 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.
>
> Read my lips: Layers.
Yes, I see that now... I would never have thought of using layers that way.
>> - 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?
>
> Layers and layer masks.
DPaint used to have a thing called "stencils" where you could mark
certain colours as "protected", and any pixels drawn in that colour
can't be altered. (Remember, DPaint works with palette-based bitmaps.)
Is this a similar trick, or something different?
>> - 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.
>> - How on earth does he do the text like that?
>
> Photoshop has quite advanced text manipulation capabilities.
You can say that again...
> It handles
> them as vector graphics (probably one of the few true vector drawing
> features in the program) until they are "burnt" into the final bitmap
> layer.
I see.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
