|
Post by kane on Mar 10, 2009 8:59:45 GMT -9
Was digging through some books the other day and came accross my copy of Peter Jacksons Paper Fantasy minis. Some decent designs, but they look to be 20mm or so...and some of the large figures are VERY cramped in their little squares. I remember when I bought the book, probably about 7 years ago, I always had planned to scan it and print more copies. Well, now thats actually possible with the quality of scanners and printers. Problem is, now Jim is doing the same thing BETTER. May give it a shot anyway, but will have to scan, enlarge, and add a black border as they are based on square white backgrounds.
|
|
|
Post by tugunmojo on Mar 10, 2009 10:23:02 GMT -9
I still have mine, but I agree, Jim's are much better!
|
|
|
Post by silentsquirrel on Mar 11, 2009 3:04:08 GMT -9
I still have mine as well, if you're referring to the old Cardboard Heroes line. I scanned mine in years ago, but never printed them out.
These days there's no point in using them... Jim's stuff is just that much cooler.
|
|
|
Post by godofrandomness on Mar 11, 2009 19:25:38 GMT -9
The only ones I got were the Cardboard Heroes: Munchkin that came with the munchkin DM screen. Those are awesome but I could never bring myself to pop them out and use them, and now they are missing...
|
|
|
Post by kane on Mar 11, 2009 20:42:26 GMT -9
I still have mine as well, if you're referring to the old Cardboard Heroes line. I scanned mine in years ago, but never printed them out. These days there's no point in using them... Jim's stuff is just that much cooler. Thats the ones. At the time, they were a great idea. But your right. Jim has made them...redundant.
|
|
|
Post by highlandpiper on Jun 6, 2009 4:03:08 GMT -9
I've bought almost all of them from e23 in pdf. They are nice to have. I don't normally rate who's are better as there are such gaps in paper mini industry that I will take almost anything I can get (except CGI paper figs).
They do a great job of filling in the blanks.
When you consider how old they are they still stand up fairly well.
|
|
|
Post by kane on Jun 8, 2009 6:32:16 GMT -9
Agreed on the CGI figs. I really just can't stand them. Too clean. Too plastic looking.
|
|
|
Post by Aestelon on Jun 8, 2009 8:04:34 GMT -9
I think the problem I have with CGI-style figs is that they usually seem like they're trying to look realistic, but not quite making it. The figures Jim and the rest of us make are kind of cartoonish, and work really well for it. I think I'd equate the CGI figures to weak squash (cordial). If you haven't got enough concentrate to make a proper drink, the flavour's unpleasantly weak, and you'd rather just have the water. Figure realism is the concentrate in my analogy. If you can't go all the way, I'd rather not do it at all.
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Jun 8, 2009 9:31:54 GMT -9
Reminds me of beowulf...... they made a really convincing almost photo realistic model of Angelina Jolie, cost millions and used infinite processing power.
Of course, they had to do that as there is no such things as an Angelina Jolie and they needed to do it with CGI.
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Jun 8, 2009 11:56:29 GMT -9
I think the problem I have with CGI-style figs is that they usually seem like they're trying to look realistic, but not quite making it. The figures Jim and the rest of us make are kind of cartoonish, and work really well for it. I think I'd equate the CGI figures to weak squash (cordial). If you haven't got enough concentrate to make a proper drink, the flavour's unpleasantly weak, and you'd rather just have the water. Figure realism is the concentrate in my analogy. If you can't go all the way, I'd rather not do it at all. I agree on the CGI assessment. It bugs me when one medium is pushed too hard to look like another medium. Oil paintings, pencil drawings, cartoon illustrations, or computer graphics should embrace what makes them unique mediums and not just try to be as real as possible. I don't want a paper miniature that ignores the fact that it's a paper illustration. Maybe that's why I like 2.5D so much. On another note: What's "weak squash"?
|
|
|
Post by Floyd on Jun 8, 2009 13:07:36 GMT -9
The thing with simply using a realistically proportioned human cgi Figure is that 15-30mm scale figures are not realistically proportioned. They are exaggerated in the appendades, head size and general proportions. The detail is abstracted quite a bit. Less is more and your eyes/brain fill in the details.. Colors and shadows are typically high contrast.
The few companies I see releasing these also leave in all the detail You'd find on much larger figures,say in the 54mm historicals range. Unfortunately it does not translate well at gaming distance.
It is more of an art than science.
~F
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Jun 8, 2009 18:31:34 GMT -9
Reminds me of beowulf...... they made a really convincing almost photo realistic model of Angelina Jolie, cost millions and used infinite processing power. Of course, they had to do that as there is no such things as an Angelina Jolie and they needed to do it with CGI. Apart from the disgusting abberations of the story, the treatment of Angelina Jolie was one of the things about Beowulf that disappointed me the most. I spent three years as an art major in the late '60s, and my long suit was life-drawing. I've kept my hand in during the intervening decades, and I've taught life-drawing. One of the things an artist learns is that gravity effects flesh. If you can't see the way relaxed flesh hangs from the bones, you can never do a drawing that's convincing. Beowulf's CGI Angelina Jolie simulacrum was not convincing. And the joints didn't flex properly. I felt like they could have gotten the same effects by adding a few more points of articulation to a Barbie doll and doing stop-motion. Beowulf impressed me as being like a Shrek movie with all the believable characters removed. Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by jabbro on Jun 9, 2009 5:26:44 GMT -9
I still have a couple of the Cardboard Heroes minis. They impressed me as being full color and front and back. I still like some of the coloring(they weren't all in the same style ) as it gives a good contrast and an old school feel, but the poses were awkward and very unheroic for most of them. It would be interesting to revive them as fillers, but they are nothing compared to Jim's.
|
|
|
Post by Aestelon on Jun 9, 2009 7:42:58 GMT -9
On another note: What's "weak squash"? I you call it cordial (so do some of us); concentrated fruity drink usually bearing the legend "Dilute to taste". Weak squash is simply overdiluted.
|
|
|
Post by docryder on Jun 14, 2009 18:05:20 GMT -9
The guy who did the art for the SJG Cardboard Heroes (Denis Loubet) is an excellent artist. Sadly, he was limited to a one inch tall, half inch wide space so they could stuff as many as possible on a 4x6 piece of cardstock. Really, they're quite dynamic for the limitations the artist worked under.
Today, we've decided to go with larger paper and spread the figures out, allowing even more dynamic poses, which means we can also mod stuff. It would be interesting to see what Loubet could do if he tried to do what we do today.
|
|
|
Post by pilotnutjob on Sept 22, 2009 22:48:07 GMT -9
I have almost all of the Sci-Fi and a few other the other types of SJG's Cardboard heroes, and I like them. Additionally, I have started collecting One Monk figures because they work well for me in particular instances. I also have a good number of the Disposable Heroes sets (the customizable ones - Statix ones are a waste of money) from Precise Intermedia Games (PIG), and they have been great to use at times. Furthermore, I have CGI figures from Dakkar, and they are really useful (seriously, the hottest babes of the paper figure universe). Moreover, I have more than the other four companies combined of the CGI figures from Arion and they have been complete lifesavers in many instances.
I have used all of these figures together in games at times (just played a sci-fi game, BattleTroops, today with friends that used figures from all five of these companies) and am completely pleased with the results.
The only paper figures I have ever disliked were made by WWG. They do not fit with the others in any fashion I see - completely individualistic!
|
|