Megalith mario!

[Dusty]

Why do this manually? I can stack up boxes in 3DSmax and get the exact same results in a fraction of the time. Rendering this simple object with no AA at this size would take less than 5 seconds. I would even have full control over the camera, being able to pan, zoom, skew, etc, then re-render if desired. Not to mention what 3D modifiers could do if applied to your Mario as a group of boxes. Yes, dirty angles would need cleaned up manually. Obviously you'd render it out, then edit it's palette as well since doing so in post makes more sense, all you need is slight contrast between colored areas for your fill tool.

Anyone else can also go to 3dsmax and render up a perspective for whatever scene they're doing. It's good practice to learn perspective and to know how it works rather than just using a program to render it all for you. Same can apply for lighting, shadow, and just about nearly all aspects of art.

[Ryumaru]

Why do this manually? I can stack up boxes in 3DSmax and get the exact same results in a fraction of the time. Rendering this simple object with no AA at this size would take less than 5 seconds. I would even have full control over the camera, being able to pan, zoom, skew, etc, then re-render if desired. Not to mention what 3D modifiers could do if applied to your Mario as a group of boxes. Yes, dirty angles would need cleaned up manually. Obviously you'd render it out, then edit it's palette as well since doing so in post makes more sense, all you need is slight contrast between colored areas for your fill tool.

why do pixel art when you can do pre rendered 3D sprites in a fraction of the time?

[Jad]

ryumaru, same logic does dot in any way apply to making normal sprites, where pure pixel-pushing has loads of advantages over clumsy prerendering and mechanical averaging with pixels, where you also have to spend a great deal of time tidying up manually to get pixels to correspond to human psychological perception, really. (I know you're being ironic but you're just pulling a clumsy comparison and I don't see what point you're trying to prove except it seems like you feel that "the pixels" have been disgraced or something.)

This is just two ways of achieving a nearly identical visual effect. Just saying. Not the same thing O:

In this case though, as Dusty said, practise is awesome, making things by hand give you an greater understanding about what the heck you're doing! : D

[Mathias]

-Dusty-
I essentially agree on all counts, but my comment is specifically in reference to this one project QuaziGNRLnose is working on, not challenging all aspects of hand-drawn art as opposed to mechanically generated art. Long live fractals! j/k . . . It took me a long time to transition from the mechanical pencil to the Wacom. I hated the idea of being primarily digital at first, but if I hadn't reluctantly made the transition I would still be sitting at my drafting table using rulers and erasers laying out complicated circular gridded logos, etc, whereas now I pull a couple of fancy tricks in Illustrator and *BAM* - perfect vector geometry I can easily modify without hours of backtracking.
This is a comparable thing going on here. Seems the targeted end-result of this project isn't practice under his belt, it's a finished peice of art; something to post on PJ if good enough. The "3D" 2-point perspective box grid could be facilitated with a 3D program and then finished manually. That would be my chosen workflow for monolithic Mario here. Quazi, don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking your methods, just making a valid point. What do you think?

-Ryamaru-
Jad said it pretty well. I might use 3D in the case of sprites of human figures to get proportions right. This is a separate argument that starts to get into pixel-purism, but I don't want to hijack Quazi's thread, plus the pixel-purist argument is futile, it's like arguing religion.

Hey, I'll just shuddup, Quazi, rock on, brotha.

[Gil]

PixelJint does have silly rules Mathias, so if he wanted to add it to their gallery for example, he couldn't use your method.

I'm inclined to agree with your view that this may be a slightly useless exercise, but I also agree with Jad that any exercise is good exercise and he seems to have fun doing it. So yeah

[Atnas]

Honestly I don't think pixel purism has anything to do with it, rather I believe it's a matter of whether you choose to be self reliable or to rely on technology. If I was doing this, I would like to draw the grid from scratch. Not only for the learning experience as has Jad said, but more importantly because it is mine, because I made it.

I view it as the same struggle that goes with learning human anatomy, because you could always download some 3d program and trace the human. It's the same difference. Does it speed up the process? Yes. Do you learn anything, and can you really take pride in it? Not much, and no.

Illustrator is a different thing entirely. It's a tool in which you may manipulate your own work, it does not do any work without you.

If Qauzi were to simply load up a 3D scene, cap it, and fill in the little boxes he would have learned nothing at all and by my standards it would not qualify as something one should take pride in. However, if there was more work involved than filling in the boxes, such as pixel technique, design theory, and drawing going on I would have to retract that statement because much more effort and human input had taken place.

But then again, my opinion and how I judge may be irrelevant to another. I just find that automated shortcuts cut out what makes creation so worthwhile and worthy of pride.

I'll shut up too. "rock on Qauzi"! :3

[Helm]

It seems to me the Pixeljoint rules are a fundamentalist branching of from our rules. It's really amazing for me how misconstrued the intention of the 'every pixel placed intentionally' seems to be by their administration and I think that they might feel it too, as of late. Now that they've strong-armed their version of what 'pixel purity' is so hard against so many breaches of conduct though,  it's very difficult to back down to something more sensible without appearing as flip-floppers. It's something that should be publicly discussed at some point I think because it's hurting Pixeljoint and I think it's hurting the internet presence of the medium as well.

I see no reason to not use a computer projection for the grid for something like this, unless someone wants to be an architect I don't see the skill of making instanced little windows in perspective by hand as a very important one.

I would however suggest that the original poster use a bigger, vertical size of canvas for this, and use 4 point perspective so he can have a curve towards the top of the mario. If needed I'll do a little sketch. Just ask, Quazi.

I view it as the same struggle that goes with learning human anatomy, because you could always download some 3d program and trace the human. It's the same difference. Does it speed up the process? Yes. Do you learn anything, and can you really take pride in it? Not much, and no.

This is a flawed point of view because yes, you'd learn a lot by copying the human figure from 3d or a picture (as long as the picture or the 3d image are of good quality and your fundaments on how to approach art are there) and in fact, besides pondering on the human figure on your own time, that's the prime way through which you might learn anatomy. That's what you do in figure drawing, actually. I can see where you're coming from but it's a dangerous path to think that you may only take pride on pieces of art that you've made with NO REFERENCE EVER, ANYWHERE. You should take pride in whether your art communicates something, makes people feel something, not just on whether you did it based on self-grown skill. These however are mentalities that I would segregate between 'developing artist-to-be' and 'communicative, functional artist' and yes, your mentality is a solid one for the artist-to-be to perhaps grow some fundamental skill, but it will not serve an artist whose main priority is to communicate a particular emotion or effect. Please consider the alter apars on the subject.

[Atnas]

You misunderstand me. I was not implying copying the human figure in an effort to learn, but rather as a utilitarian, one-time, ordeal. Reference is essential to learning. A piece produced with or without reference makes no difference if the end result is the same. (which sounds hypocritical at this point) The misunderstanding ends on the point of architecture and of communication, in which your statements have been noted and I believe I agree with, now considering. I now realize my flawed point of view and although I can see the merits of what I was thinking - that if a skill is not possessed it is best learned - that it is an impractical view and one that disregards helpful advancements in technology towards aiding the end goal of art.

Actually, now I see you may not have misunderstood me at all. What makes a human different from a render of boxes in perspective if the artist has no interest or gain from learning it? Why assume someone must always learn the ins and outs of the subject matter instead of just using an exact reference of it outright?

Sorry for more derailment, but I wouldn't mind discussing this further in private.

[QuaziGNRLnose]

I would however suggest that the original poster use a bigger, vertical size of canvas for this, and use 4 point perspective so he can have a curve towards the top of the mario. If needed I'll do a little sketch. Just ask, Quazi.

hmm, 4 point perspective, ive never heard of it b4 but it seems like it would suit this piece well, and give purpose to doing it by hand, id love to see a sketch if its not any trouble

[Ryumaru]

ryumaru, same logic does dot in any way apply to making normal sprites, where pure pixel-pushing has loads of advantages over clumsy prerendering and mechanical averaging with pixels, where you also have to spend a great deal of time tidying up manually to get pixels to correspond to human psychological perception, really. (I know you're being ironic but you're just pulling a clumsy comparison and I don't see what point you're trying to prove except it seems like you feel that "the pixels" have been disgraced or something.)

This is just two ways of achieving a nearly identical visual effect. Just saying. Not the same thing O:

It wasn't so much about pixel purism as it was that mathias's words sounded like he was just trying to limit time and effort put into a piece. I know that it would be great practice for me to do a 3d grid like this( also isn't there some technique using diagonals so that you could make sure all the squares were the " same" size as the others?) that I wouldn't get with just a 3d render. Also, Mathias's second post furthers my point, using a 3d render to get proportions right? why can't you use your eyes to measure instead of a machine? not to mention that would limit you if you were creating an animation and wanted to use squash and stretch techniques.
I think we're here to learn, not find shortcuts. Lets learn to be artists and then use the shortcuts when we're doing commissions and getting PAID where time is money.

In this case though, as Dusty said, practise is awesome, making things by hand give you an greater understanding about what the heck you're doing! : D