C&C: painting system that "works" for me

[Nacho]

Hi people... I have been working on an image last days, you´d probalby seen it in if you´ve been in mIRC. I was not completely satisfied (at all, in fact)... I prefered to make it in my style, is spite of trying to get the Lucas´ early 90´s style... Now it is your turn, what do you think?

here is the previous attemps, but have in mind that it is unfinished. I´d preffer if you critisize the first one, thought...



Edit: I was working in the second one for one week, the first lasted two days...

[m0ds]

Someone is gonna want you bad!

[TheYak]

I want him bad.  If he's too good, it just doesn't do it for me.  I'm kinky that way.  

Anyway, I have to say that both images are absolutely outstanding, Farl.  I prefer the 2nd one.  It's got a more realistic look to it.  The color for the building seems like it's the appropriate one for it, giving it a brick look rather than a flat painted wood look.  And those tree-shadows . . . I am absolutely enamored with the tree shadows.  As for the top image, I like it quite a bit also, but the surfaces look a bit flat.  If they were given a painted wood or brick look, they wouldn't stand out quite so much to me.  The pixelization of the windows also makes it look like they're a bit off perspective.  For instance, look at the bottom row of windows.  The first few seem to be almost flat rectangles, it's only when you get further down the line that they seem to follow the angle of the building.  

My suggestion for those is this (assuming you're using a program w/ layers):  Draw your perspective lines on another layer and pixel push the window edges until they match them.  The tree sillouhette is great, quite realistic-looking.  I also like that you can read the sign above the door in this one, whereas the bottom one is a bit blurry.  The addition of the top row of windows also helps to add a bit of depth and round out the structure of the building.  Very nice job.  

[SilverHawke]

I believe "WOW" is the proper response. I have to agree with Yak... I think the second style has a bit more to offer in the way of detail... but that the first one can be even better if the details are edited in such as:

tree shadow as in the first
the shadows from the lamps to the left and right of the door
some kind of detail or variety in the actual walls (I like how you edited in the bricks)

Also.. for the first one.. something seems 'off' about the windows above the entrance... I guess it is just the open black space.. perhaps a little peek inside would alleviate that.

Either way.. amazing work. I look forward to seeing more.

[Nacho]

Thanks Yak... I see it now that the windows at the end are too big, the feeling of "flat" is real, but I´d never noticed without your help (It´s been kinda like that "magic eye" books).

There is a reason for the great textures and shadows in the second one, I pasted a semitransparent photo, which I think it´s a hint (Thankyou ^Migs^ for saying it is jut a tecnique...). The problem with this is that I won´t probably find photos of all the rooms I want to do.

And SilverHawke... working in the improvements you suggested!!!  

[Pessi]

Great work, Farlander!

I like the second image more because it's more lively than the first one. Probably due to more color variation, contrast and shapes like the shadows cast on the wall. However, I get the impression that this one relies greatly on reference. Though I might be wrong.

I think it would help a lot if you drew shadows in the first image. It always helps in making the scene more interesting because of the new shapes. Shadows also give depth to the image.

I think the shadows are also the main reason for the fact that in the second image you pay more attention to the entrance than in the first one - in the first one I just keep staring at the windows. It's where the greatest contrast lies. The window frames are of the brightest color in the image, and the windows (or what you see through them) are of the darkest color there is in the scene. I think this is what makes them so prominent. In the second image, on the other hand, there's a reflection of the sky in the windows that makes them pretty bright and thus have less contrast. The viewer won't think they're an important part of the scene.

The second image attracts the eye to the entrance with contrast created by the bright pillars & sign and the open (dark) windows & door.

By the way, if you want to try it out, make the shadows a bit more blue. Like in the second image where they're actually in most places red but they look blueish because they are getting closer to blue and further away from orange.

Anyway, I'm starting to confuse myself so I'll just leave it at this. By the way, what's this painting system you're talking about?

[Nacho]

Thanks for your comments Pessi... and thanks for the final line, which has made me realize that I haven´t explained which is the system I used for the first image.  

Well... It consists in painting over photographs, using big blobs of plain colours over each surface (I.E. the big wall is painted in one colour). It is pretty quick, because in the second image I took attention almost in every pixel (shadow, brick, shadow, anti alising...) It is a steady work...


About the second pic:


PLUS


made the work... As you can see, the original painting was not so cute as the final result... and I consider to use semitransparent pics a hint... and I am ashamed...  :'(

Edit: A new version with new tones of colors and shadows.



Edit: Thanks Neole for the webspace.

[n3tgraph]

:o  OUTSTANDING farlander!!!

how about those painting lessons you promised  :

anyway
I just wanted to say that since I don't have any comment at all
I can see what the purpose for this building will be B. C. ??

[SilverHawke]

I do have a question though... could you share how you created that effect of the leaves on the tree?.. I think that looks great and I've always had a problem with trees/shrubs.

[Nacho]

I do have a question though... could you share how you created that effect of the leaves on the tree?.. I think that looks great and I've always had a problem with trees/shrubs.

Do you mean in the BIG picture? I painted it quite randomly, with a big brush (I think it was a 7 pixels circle) then I resized it (50 %). That makes the noticeable circular shape of the pencil dissapear.

EDIT: Increator has a nice totorial with trees...
http://www.hot.ee/increator/draw.htm

[Gregjazz]

Nice! Getting that Indiana Jones style with the perfect perspective and straight lines well. Keep it up!

[InCreator]

Helluva pretty.
But why did you reveal the secret about using photos?
A trick is never that great once It's working principles are revealed... and I think I'm going to rip google apart now and try this stuff out...

[Pessi]

Heh, I think it's called helping out or something like that.

[loominous]

Believe it s also called being honest. Using references or doing paintovers is equal to 'sampling'* when creating music imo and should be clearly anounced (which Farlander did).

*(that is to "borrow" pieces of other songs and using it in your own; could be a drumbeat, bassline or whole sequences)

[Cuban0]

Try this now:  Animate the leaves, and show the animated shadow of the leaves diffusing on the building.

Light could also be added behind the windows, and the grass will show some red from the building reflecting off it's shiny blades (most of it is diffused).

Just my 2 cents.

[TheYak]

Now that's getting a bit crazy.  If he's looking to do an extremely realistic piece that takes into account reflectivity, refraction, ambience, environmental and transparent factors, sure.  It wouldn't be a bad idea, at all, for a close-up shot but doing details that fine on this pic you either a) wouldn't notice 'em or b) they'd stand out like DG wearing underpants.  

The animated leaf-thing w/ animated shadow is a good idea.  It'd be a bit of a pain if everything's not still in separate layers and might be a bit of a performance hit though.

[Nacho]

Yes... Animated leaves, reflections and a sunbeam through the tree also, would be teh Cool! But there is a problem... Functionality... I mean, we can improve every image more and more, but we must be sure to put this standard in a reasonable way. Imagine that we want a game with 75 rooms... If you work one week per room that would leave a 1 year and a half production just for the rooms!!! that´s too much, specially thinking that such an ambitios game should need lots of animations, shortcuts, even, and a lot of scripting. I think that 2 rooms/per week is good for finishing a game within 2 years, which is the goal I am following.

My two cents, my advise   Think in every aspect of the production respect the whole game...

BTw, thanks cubano, your entry has made me think...

[Moresco]

Farlander, you do the same thing I do, find wonderful images & use them as a guideline for what I couldn't think up in my head.  Brilliant

I can think up some good things though, but can't quite get them onto the paper yet.  Need more practice...

Oh and I prefer the second image from the first post.

[Nacho]

I see nothing bad with using photos... Some people can think that this means lack of imagination, but I pick most of the times a lot of pics to make a composition.... In this very case it was unnecessary, as Spielberg did it for me  

But my oppinion is that making a game can be overwhelming... You must be aware of the music, animation, script and providing the rest of the atmosphere with the graphics... We can´t blame nobody for making the game production easier with some references.

Ah! Welcome back Moresco, and vote for me in the foregos!