Topic: FoA-style production process

[Jens]

Mh, I did not really like the result of the automatic conversion. So I tried to imitate the typical gradient-pattern-feeling of FoA. But you are right, it does not look that good. I have just changed this by adding more colours to the gradient and adding a gradient spatter to it which makes the pattern look more random. Also, I have added a few more cracks and put another color-gradient onto it by using the colourize- and translucency-function.


The pillars in the back and the cracks have been moved, too. With the foreground I'll deal later on.

And yes, there is the idea of an Indy-game that a guy from this forum and I are trying to design.

[cat]

Wow, this looks so much better now!

[Layabout]

I am much more impressed with this new version of the background. I know its low colour, but it just looks so much cleaner. Dithering gives me headaches.

[Miez]

It's a beautiful BG. Very much in the FoA style, and I love watching the whole process of tweaking and changing...
Just one little thing bothers the fubbery ruck out of me: of the four pillars supporting the roof lintel (?) in the back/right of the picture, the second one is broken and lacking its' center part. Which is fine. But what is keeping up both the lintel stones and the remaining top of the pillar? They're just hanging there! It looks a little... unnatural. Still; great BG!

[Chicky]

Super glue my friend 

Very nice bg.

[Jens]

lol, yea, right. But hmm.. perhaps the material is strong enough to carry itself under normal circumstances? Or perhaps it's a decorative distance between all the pillars, not a necessary one from the point of architecture (so that after one pillar falls away, the inner statics are still strong enough to carry the material)? 
Anyways, the whole was intended to look "dangerous". And maybe in a game-scene it will even collapse...



I have applied a few more cracks to that part of the wall/ceiling to underline the fragile status. Hopefully that helps, because I really like to have it there. If not I will have to think of something else.  :

And thx for the compliment. Glad you like it.

[Darth Mandarb]

I think what Miez meant is that the top part wouldn't be there at all.

In old construction like this, if I'm not way off here, there was no mortar or nails or anything like that.  Weight and gravity did the trick.  So that top part of the support would have nothing to hold it up there like that!

I too thought it looked a bit off, but other than that I'm impressed with the background and really enjoyed this thread!

Oh ... and make the game! 

[Jens]

wikipedia says they did have mortar. but the longer i look at it, the weirder it looks to me, too.

so what about that quick alternative?

[Arboris]

It looks good to me, but then again, I didn't see anything wrong with the previous version.

[i k a r i]

In my modest opinion I think half pillar and the broken part lying on the floor would look much better than a whole pillar for a tiny rock. 



Excellent background by the way.

[Lt. Smash]

maybe you let the piece of wall there and just remove the part of the pillar

cause otherwise we maybe don't have enough things to collapse after the explosion and I also liked that part of wall.



ps: before the question turns up. I'm that guy who's working with Jens.

[José Luiz]

That's an excellent result!

I really don't have any drawing skills and got very interesting in this process.
Jens, do you think it's possible even for those (like me) who don't have a tablet yet? Or should I give up this tecnique and try another one(s)?

[Ghost]

The last edit is totally spot-on. The broken segment itself makes the structure "dangerous", because now you notice that there's been collapses already... I kneel. In the name of mighty Wayne and Garth: I am unworthy. 

Oh, and best of luck with that game. Would do these eyes some good to see a traditional Indy again, because, yes, the 3D approach left some scar tissue.

[Miez]

wikipedia says they did have mortar. but the longer i look at it, the weirder it looks to me, too.

so what about that quick alternative?

Looks perfect to me!

[tube]

It just gets better and better. Although, if I was looking for reasons to nitpick, I'd ask where have all the fallen bits of pillar and stone gone? But I'm not, so I won't. Maybe tourists took them home as souvenirs or something...

[Sparky]

If I may ask, you said you are using Deluxe Paint, right? What are your thoughts on the program? I'm a long-time Photoshop and Gimp user, but both applications have shortcomings when dealing with pixel art, particularly animation and palette work.

In terms of feedback, I really like what a bit of retouching has done to your low resolution version. It looks much more detailed now, while still retaining many of the qualities of the original. I think The woodsy area in the background, the broken pillar in the foreground, and the pile of rubble in particular look much better now. And that dirt-spattered column on the left looks top notch. One smapp gripe is that a few areas still look too soft and show the effects of the scaling.

I'm a fan of the new, more random dithering style. Did you say it started as a pattern dither, then was randomly scattered? Or is it a purely random pattern?

[Jens]

When you are new to Deluxe Paint, everything appears complicated and uncomfortable. You may get annoyed from the unfamiliar way of doing things. But when you get used to Deluxe Paint and know how to handle its advantages and disadvantages it is possible to get good pixel-results in a very short time. Personally, I am happy with it (also for doing animations [that in Deluxe Paint Animation]).

The random gradient dithering style is a function of Deluxe Paint. You can set up the degree of the "gradient spatter" individually. For this picture I have used a medium gradient spatter. After that, I have melt together a few pixels manually by using the smooth-tool.
Also, I have picked a different gradient (brown colours) and used Deluxe Paint's colourize-function to merge it into the pillar (moving the cursor randomly over it).

The foreground and the left part (rocks/dirt) is so blurry, because there wasn't more detail in the painting when I scaled it down. So I do not think that it is a scaling effect.

Personally, I would not be able to (or at least would not like to) do those paintings without my tablet. Drawing concept art with pencils, scanning that into the computer and colourize it there is so uncomfortable compared to all those fast possibilities of picture creation/correction with a tablet. That's also why I am of the opinion that you can learn the most about drawing when you use a tablet.

[Galen]

Scaffolding?

[frission]

The biggest issue in the conversion from high-res to low-res is that the edges become very indistinct and blurry. I think if you could improve the contrast to the edges of those things which are meant to have strong edges, it would make it a long stronger looking, and fit the style a little better (and look less like you took a high-res image and down-sampled it).

[Galen]

I have more of a problem with ugly "scanned" dithering. Take BASS for example. Nice art but the dithering really sticks out. Not that this particularly suffers from it.