Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - eishiya
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22

General Discussion / Re: Challenge candidate: Limited gamut
« on: Yesterday at 04:14:38 pm »
Challenges are about challenging artists to work with limited tools or otherwise outside of their comfort zone.
What is the challenge here? There are so many diverse colours available here that an artist could do just about anything without really thinking about it, without the challenge restrictions affecting their decisions in any meaningful way. This isn't a challenge, this is a minor inconvenience - "oh no I can't use the colour sliders."

There's a reason that palette challenges tend to employ tiny palettes. Those really force the artist to think about the colours they're using, to use and mix them in interesting way. If you're providing full ramps of just about every hue, even if the total number of colours is much smaller than the entire RGB space, you're not really limiting anyone.

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] [Feedback] 1-Bit Pixelart
« on: January 15, 2017, 04:19:15 pm »
I recommend redoing the big tree yourself instead of using so much of my edit. I chose an arbitrary light source, which doesn't necessarily match the lighting you want to have on everything. I don't mind you using it, but I think you'd learn more by doing it yourself.

I think those smaller trees are definitely going in the right direction! Their forms are more readable than the old one, for the most part.
Try starting with a solid, shaded cone of the size you need, and then breaking up the edges to suggest detail. That might be a good way to make sure you're not over-dithering. Deliberately incorrectly-sized example:

You can do the same thing for other trees, just with different shapes.

The rounded walls don't read as rounded to me, but I think it's because of the perspective mismatch; the actual pixelling on them looks nice and readable, it's clear that the middle part is meant to pop. The walls have a flat top and bottom (as opposed to rounded), which suggests they're flat. A rounded wall would only have a flat top and bottom when viewer from the front (e.g. like in a side-scrolling game), but your layout suggests more of a top-down view. This is an issue with a lot of the sprites, but it's less noticeable on them because they're too small for the rounding to be prominent even if it was there.

General Discussion / Re: Stupid Question Regarding Tile Sizes
« on: January 14, 2017, 01:53:00 pm »
But if you want to use 16x16 level tiles while depicting 16x12 floor tiles, you still can, and it would require six tiles instead of the usual two:

(which could be flips or recolours of each other depending on what sort of details you have on the floor.)

A lot of games mix the two, they'll have objects use "proper" 3/4 projection, but have 16x16 floor tiles just to be able to have fewer tiles.

General Discussion / Re: Make your own ellipses (pixel art)
« on: January 14, 2017, 01:43:51 pm »
I wouldn't rasterize a single-colour red ellipse on white any differently from a single-colour green ellipse on white. Those are still contextless shapes!
But, I would rasterise a bright green plastic pipe (the opening of which is an ellipse) sticking out of grey concrete that's meant to be the focal point differently from how I'd rasterise a grey hole in that concrete (also an ellipse). That's context. And the reasons I'd do that are
1. The green pipe is a focus, and so I would probably make it a little thicker so that it's clear that it's the focus.
2. Light affects plastic and concrete differently, and the two objects have different types of edges. This effects how much of an impression of light/shadow I want to give and how smooth/soft I'd make the edges.
3. The two objects have different textures, and possibly different kinds of wear and tear. I would break up their outlines to reflect this. Subtle chips in the material are very easy to convey by choosing to rasterise one part of a shape differently from another, since the overall shape is still an ellipse, but now with subtle irregularities.

See what I mean by context now? Actual artwork. Scenes, tilesets, etc. where ellipses are used to depict objects or create an impression rather than drawn for their own sake.

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] [Feedback] 1-Bit Pixelart
« on: January 13, 2017, 02:31:02 pm »
Pet peeve alert: That's a fir (or maybe a spruce), not a pine. This is a pine.

In any case though, it's still symmetrical. I meant the tree that's not a silhouette, that one was fine. I meant the dithered one that is literally symmetrical, down to the pixel level. The two silhouette trees were fine. Sorry for being unclear before!

Single pixels might sometimes be unavoidable, but noise is always avoidable. If you have pixels that don't read like anything, that's noise, and it doesn't belong. Pixels that read as texture or details are not noise. However, for that to happen, they need context, larger clusters of pixels establishing the context to which those single pixels add texture/detail. If everything is detail, then there's no form, and therefore it doesn't read.

Here's an edit illustrating some of what I said in my earlier post, using solid areas of black and white to show the form:

I didn't use any dithering because I feel it's unnecessary at this size, but that's not to say you can't or shouldn't.
I also made that one dithered tree asymmetrical while I was at it.

Pixel Art / Re: Trouble with cyberpunk color pallettes
« on: January 13, 2017, 12:56:36 am »
Draw some scenes first. There's no other way to know what colours you'll need, and what colours are redundant.

Try starting your palette with just a few "key" colours, e.g. your general dark colours, and then a few colours for the neon lighting/accents. Then, add more variants as you need them. You don't need an entire palette to start working. Let your needs drive your palette, don't let your palette control your art.

Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] [Feedback] 1-Bit Pixelart
« on: January 12, 2017, 01:45:43 pm »
The symmetry on the triangular tree(?) is making it look like something artificial. It's better to avoid symmetry with trees like that - trees are only vaguely symmetrical, and they look more natural without symmetry.

The two dithered trees feel rather noisy. Don't forget that black and white are also valid values you can use! Don't be afraid to have solid black and white parts. In those parts where you do mix black and white pixels, I think it might be better to focus on showing clumps of leaves/branches rather than individual leaves. At this scale, tiny details just read like noise.

General Discussion / Re: Make your own ellipses (pixel art)
« on: January 11, 2017, 05:07:30 pm »
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:
A single artist will likely rasterize the same size ellipse in different ways in different situations, based on what they're depicting and the colours they're using.

Context matters. A person's "opinion" on which pixels to fill with which colour depends on the context. Sure, if someone's just filling out a sheet full of contextless ellipses, then it's only their opinion that matters because there's no context. But the point is, most people don't do that, they do ellipses in context, and that context drives their decision.
If you pixel ellipses the same way in all contexts, you're probably making worse art than you could be.

Pixel Art / Re: [GAME] [WIP] First Timer - Mechanical Problem
« on: January 11, 2017, 03:14:17 pm »
Your shading/highlights just hug the outlines. This creates two problems:
1. It doesn't actually show the form of the clouds, trees, car, hills, etc at all, it just makes them look like embossed flat shapes, like stickers or something.
2. The shadows create banding, which makes your work look blocky, drawing too much attention to the pixel grid.

Think in terms of forms (3D), not shapes (2D). The silhouette (apparent shape) of an object isn't the only (or even main) thing that affects the shadows on it. For example, consider the nose on a human face face. From the front, it doesn't affect the silhouette/shape of the face, but it's still visible because of the way it affects light (shadows and highlights). If you were to shade a human face the way you're shading things in this scene, that face woulnd't have a nose.

I think it would be better to use more contrasting colours in the green character. As-is, it's almost impossible to tell apart their skin, shirt, and trousers. In addition, they contrast poorly against the yellow-brown hill behind them because the values (how dark/light the colours are) of their head are very similar to the colour of the background.

Pixel Art / Re: Avatar of my own character
« on: January 11, 2017, 02:56:30 pm »
You don't need to post a pre-zoomed version, Pixelation has a zoom tool. Click to zoom in, ctrl+click to zoom out.

I think this is a very solid start! I have mainly minor nitpicks:
- The shoulder has jaggies, and the white area below the shoulder is conspicuously missing AA.
- I like how most of the face is in shadow, but it seems like the nose shouldn't have that highlight on it, while the cheek should have more light.
- The shape of the sideburn (not sure what to call it) is jagged and feels a bit tentative, I think some smoother, swooshier curves would look better. The shading/AA on it also hug the lines, creating banding.
- The AA on the light part of the uppermost hair spike and the top of the head uses too dark a colour and just makes the outline look thick.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22