|
Post by darkhorseproductions on Sept 17, 2014 8:30:28 GMT -9
Do you prefer hand drawn models or completely computer generated?
|
|
|
Post by mahotsukai on Sept 17, 2014 8:53:23 GMT -9
Most computer generated minis that I have seen tend to be too far into the 'uncanny valley' for my liking.
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Sept 17, 2014 9:01:10 GMT -9
I think the key word is 'models'. I also prefer hand-drawn figures, but for models I prefer computer-generated
|
|
|
Post by darkhorseproductions on Sept 17, 2014 9:29:05 GMT -9
I should have included figures in this.
|
|
|
Post by flockofthese on Sept 17, 2014 13:19:47 GMT -9
I voted for hand drawn, but that't because not enough computer generated figures use good 'toon shading. I never really cared for the way computer generated characters normally look. Its just personal preference though, and is not limited to paper figures.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Sept 18, 2014 4:55:52 GMT -9
I'd guess the reality for many paper model makers ( not miniature figure creators though) would be somewhere between the two - that is, drawn by hand (using a drawing tool or mouse) but directly into a computer, and importing or adding textures, which might be hand-drawn or modified, to the various panels of the model. A computer is a great tool for taking a lot of the hassle out of technical drawing by hand (straight lines, precise angles, sizes, shapes, etc.). And I speak as someone who used to generate technical diagrams by hand, including stencilled or rub-down-transfer lettering, in the days before PCs! I can't think of many paper models that would still be drawn entirely by hand these days. So really, I'm trying to vote for a nonexistent third option, with a mixture of both Switching to minis, I'm much less a fan of CGI paper figures, as they tend not to look "real" enough, compared with hand-drawn ones. On the face of, that should be crazy, but of course it's simply a reflection of the current CGI technology.
|
|
|
Post by colonelshofer on Sept 18, 2014 8:33:00 GMT -9
Like both, so no vote CS
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Sept 18, 2014 13:28:16 GMT -9
Given what i've seen till today, i voted Hand-Drawn. This 'cause almost all designers uses Poser as tool to pose the figure, and none of them are able to archieve two key things: - give "tension" to the figure: as example, figures holding a sword looks like they holding a PAPER sword: the hand does not show the tension needed to handle the weight. - proper lighting/shadowing: ofter poser figures seems to have a light in the open mouth, like a refrigerator and have lighten parts where should be shadows. A notable exception was a guy that sadly abandoned this forum.... he rendered some modern soldiers and some aliens in a way that seemed "drawn", overcoming all Poser problems. I'm not able to find the thread in the forum to show you how it was.
|
|
|
Post by mesper on Sept 18, 2014 14:41:12 GMT -9
- give "tension" to the figure: as example, figures holding a sword looks like they holding a PAPER sword: the hand does not show the tension needed to handle the weight.
|
|
|
Post by Cardstock Dane on Sept 18, 2014 16:31:32 GMT -9
figures holding a sword looks like they holding a PAPER sword: the hand does not show the tension needed to handle the weight. I've wielded swords. Many different kinds. Trust me, the tension ain't that big a deal. A normal one-handed sword weighs no more than 3-4 kg. Sounds heavier than it really is. I voted computer generated - mainly because I think it gives better consistency between different styles than hand drawn, both model and mini wise. That been said, there are many very good artists both here and other places, and I like almost all of it. As for models, I think that the hand drawn ones tends to look a bit outdated - with some noteable exceptions. I use computer drawn textures or phototextures in my own models, as I think it makes the models look far more realistic, but as almost everything else, it all comes down to flavour and taste.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Sept 19, 2014 0:38:07 GMT -9
Yep. mesper: your drawings are perfect. All that hands are "holding" the weapons perfectly. Cardstock Dane: sadly i can't find an example of what i mean, so i'll not go further Sure, is a matter of tastes and i'm talking about a tiny detail. Still, it always bothers me
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Sept 19, 2014 0:50:45 GMT -9
...as example, figures holding a sword looks like they holding a PAPER sword: the hand does not show the tension needed to handle the weight. If I've interpreted correctly Parduz, and judging from my own experiences, the problem is simply CGI hands don't seem to be quite grasping objects the character is meant to be holding at times. When you grip a weapon or tool handle for real, your fingers "fatten out" slightly, because of the pressure you must apply to stop it slipping. CGI hands and fingers can look too "normal", if they're not based upon real people holding real objects. Mesper's hand-drawn examples look entirely "real" by contrast, because they're based on how actual human hands look. For most miniatures of circa 30mm and smaller, this doesn't matter so much, I think, because the difference isn't easy to see at normal gaming-table distance, the "player's eye view". The shading and lighting issue you noted is of greater significance though, and what helps make CGI minis often look so "unreal" to me.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Sept 19, 2014 2:37:37 GMT -9
Thanks, wyvern, for translating my tought
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on Sept 19, 2014 3:01:59 GMT -9
Most computer generated minis that I have seen tend to be too far into the 'uncanny valley' for my liking. 100+ agree.
Mesper's examples he posted look like they are holding/gripping the weapons with proper muscular tension whereas computer generated figures nearly always look like manikins propped up with sticks.
As a former student of Iaido I know very well that there is a difference between having a lightweight stick in your hands and making the same movements with a shinken. The difference in muscular tension is slight, but the difference can be felt and the difference can be observed by others.
|
|
|
Post by puddingwrestler on Sept 21, 2014 18:19:34 GMT -9
It very much depends on your definition of computer generated. I really hate 3D CGI renders being used as paper figures, but I do all my designing on the computer using vector graphics. Both of these styles can be called 'computer generated' - I've voted for Computer Generated, but only under this definition. I would prefer the meanest hand drawn paper figure to a 3D CGI render - especially if it's just lifted from a video game.
|
|
|
Post by darkhorseproductions on Sept 21, 2014 19:19:26 GMT -9
I understand your point completely puddingwrestler. I guess i have cause a small problem on here, my bad My definition of computer generated is. Creating characters in a 3D program and then enhanced in photoshop. I do not consider a hand drawn character that is scanned and the colored in Photoshop to be computer generated. This goes the same for terrains, buildings, objects and so on. If you use a pen and tablet to create on the computer as I see it you are just skipping the the scanning process. I would consider that method hand drawn too. I hope this helps in explaining what I was looking for.
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Sept 21, 2014 21:02:35 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by puddingwrestler on Sept 24, 2014 15:46:50 GMT -9
I understand your point completely puddingwrestler. I guess i have cause a small problem on here, my bad My definition of computer generated is. Creating characters in a 3D program and then enhanced in photoshop. I do not consider a hand drawn character that is scanned and the colored in Photoshop to be computer generated. This goes the same for terrains, buildings, objects and so on. If you use a pen and tablet to create on the computer as I see it you are just skipping the the scanning process. I would consider that method hand drawn too. I hope this helps in explaining what I was looking for. This is basically what most people mean when they talk about CGI/Computer Generated work - I just wanted to be clear about it, being a film/television teacher and all.
|
|