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

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47cbf253$1@news.povray.org...

>>> (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...
>
Photoshop does support basic vectors. You can use the pen tool to make them 
and even edit them afterwards.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

> Photoshop does support basic vectors. You can use the pen tool to make 
> them and even edit them afterwards.

Even PaintShopPro (which many think of as PS without as many features) 
allows you to add layers that contain vector art (including text).  There's 
no need to lose any of the vector art data until you want to save as a 
bitmap file format (as opposed to the native psp format).  Of course it 
supports all the usual anti-aliasing, gradient colour/opacity fills, line 
styles etc.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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.

  You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of layers a graphics professional
uses when creating images. We are talking about hundreds.
  Every single minuscule thing is usually put into its own layers.

  If I'm not completely mistaken, you can group several layers in Photoshop
into one entity which then works as if it was a single layer. This way
you can eg. move a part of the image, which in itself is composed of many
layers, as if it was just one layer.

  Naturally layers can (and should) be named so that you can keep track
of what is where.

> 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?

  Probably a bunch of layers grouped together, or maybe some other technique.

> >> - 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?

  A layer mask is basically an alpha channel for a layer. That is,
besides having a full rgba color layer, the layer can have an additional,
separate alpha channel (called layer mask) which is applied to the layer
as well.
  This is handy when you want to show/hide parts of a layer, without
actually modifying the contents of that layer. And the other way around
is useful too: You can edit the contents of the layer without modifying
the layer mask, which means that your edits will never "bleed" outside
boundaries.

  The layer mask is not a bitmask, but a full alpha mask. This means
that parts of the layer can partially visible, not just on/off.

> >> - 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.

  Varying degrees of alpha transparency. I don't see any difficulty in that.

  In rgba images each pixel has an alpha transparency value. This value
can change from pixel to pixel.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of layers a graphics professional
> uses when creating images. We are talking about hundreds.
>   Every single minuscule thing is usually put into its own layers.

Wow. Just... wow.

And to think I still work on bitmaps using only 1 layer... (But then, if 
you take a photograph of something, it's all one layer, and there's not 
too much you can do about that.)

>   If I'm not completely mistaken, you can group several layers in Photoshop
> into one entity which then works as if it was a single layer. This way
> you can eg. move a part of the image, which in itself is composed of many
> layers, as if it was just one layer.

I can easily see that if *I* ever attempted to do something like this, 
I'd end up putting two things into the same layer and then being 
completely stumped later on because those things need to be in seperate 
layers.

>   A layer mask is basically an alpha channel for a layer. That is,
> besides having a full rgba color layer, the layer can have an additional,
> separate alpha channel (called layer mask) which is applied to the layer
> as well.
>   This is handy when you want to show/hide parts of a layer, without
> actually modifying the contents of that layer. And the other way around
> is useful too: You can edit the contents of the layer without modifying
> the layer mask, which means that your edits will never "bleed" outside
> boundaries.
> 
>   The layer mask is not a bitmask, but a full alpha mask. This means
> that parts of the layer can partially visible, not just on/off.

Right. So... there's a channel that controls how opaque a layer is, and 
another channel that controls how much you can draw on it?

>> 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.
> 
>   Varying degrees of alpha transparency. I don't see any difficulty in that.

Oh - you mean make a layer that's just flat dark-green, and then paint 
onto the alpha channel to blend it into the light-green parts? Ingenious...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

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.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
>>> 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

Gilles Tran a écrit :
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 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] yourshoesskynetbe> 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

Invisible escribió:
> 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

Invisible escribió:
> 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

Invisible escribió:
> damn, 2 MONTHS?!

Uh, no. Where did you read that? It says eleven months.

Post a reply to this message

"Fa3ien" <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

Fa3ien escribió:
> 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