Pixelation
Critique => Pixel Art => Topic started by: locust on August 02, 2007, 09:56:37 pm
-
something i did as a somethingelse, had to take a break from the troll.
its supposed to be snow on top of the mountains and the "polarbear" is just a snowmonster really...:)
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x266/dr_locust/mnstersno2.png)
-
I like it.. very sweet ;)
the teeth, nose and ears of the white beast looks strange too me. and the girls legs looks like she's doing push-ups on the beast :)
can't really give u any direction on what to do, it's up to your imagination ;)
I'm sure some of the more experienced people here will give u some tips on things to improve on, and how to do it. :)
-
Got some major perspective and proportion issues here. You have an eye for composition and exciting layouts, I think, but you're cheating yourself by copping out when the going gets tough. The reflection on your mountains is wrong, the lighting on them doesn't make much sense, the polar bear's face is just weird, and you need to study some animal anatomy to give your forms a more substantial and believable impact. You're starting ahead of a lot of people, just keep your nose down and keep practicing the hard stuff! It will pan out in the end :)
-
Well, when i saw the mountain reflections, i immediately hopped over to YouTube to see if i could find a video of Bob Ross doing one of his famous landscapes, but methinks that they have since been removed from the site, such a shame.
Anyway, If you look at some photographs or paintings of reflected mountains, you'll notice that realistically the closer to the horizon they get, the lighter they appear, Usually do to a higher concentration of water vapor across the surface of the water mass. This creates a foggy effect, the closer you get to the horizon line, this happens on both sides of the reflection. In terms of pixel art you might be able to pull this off with dithering, if you won't want to up your color count, however, since you've used a lot of white in the polar bear and ice, you might be able to do it with some white and lighter blues.
Good luck.
-
I did a quick edit on the reflection.
(http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/4555/bearedit1ec2.png)
Reflections in a picture with a horizon are simple to determine. Every object above the horizon will reflect an image on the opposite side of the horizon, an equal distance away. So if you have mountains at the horizon line, the base of the reflection will touch the base of the mountains themselves because the distance of the mountain base in this case is 0 pixels. Like so:
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/2734/reflections1bi6.png)
Simply, the best way to determine a reflection of the sky is to copy the whole canvas from the horizon line up, copy and paste it, and flip it vertically, having the top of the new pasted flipped sky touching the bottom of the sky.
-
Actually, the 'image' reflected will be smushed vertically, because you are viewing the water mass (the mirror) at an angle, not directly.
Disregard that, I'm an idiot. :)
-
Stwelin, that's not true. What you have shown in your diagram is a basic way to construct something like a shadow, but not a specular reflection.
-
Only slightly, and barely noticeable by the eye. And I personally think it'd be a bit wasted to even try to emulate that on the pixel level.
If you want a good reference:
http://www.romance-nz.com/photos/700mountainlake1.jpg
-
(http://laser.physics.sunysb.edu/~amy/wise2000/websites/Mirror348.jpg)
(http://library.thinkquest.org/27066/lightrays/manorange.gif)
Notice how the angle of incidence matches the angle of reflection, and thus appears to "pass through" to the mirrored image. No squashing :)
-
It WILL be squashed because you dont look directly on the surface from the same angle as the objects, result is that the reflection is deformed through perspective.
-
Trev: as Law said, that would be true were it a shadow. But reflections do not behave like shadows. They behave like reflections. That is, they behave like windows into a parallel universe - holes, if you will, that, rather than show what's on the other side, double back upon themselves so that, were you to fall into one, you would end up back where you were. Going into a reflection is sort of like exiting through an entrance to where you are. Or entering through an exit of where you wouldn't be.
See any of the above posts for the more laymen phrasing. :P
(It's why, if you set a can or a bottle on a glass table, the reflection doesn't squash, but seems more like a continuation of the object, or the object sitting on itself upside-down.)
-
I don't see how you can still say that Trev while there has been reference, as well as explanations posted explaining how there is no vertical distortion. Here's an example that reflects(pun... heh heh heh) Locust's scene.
(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4331/mountainreflectiongg0.png)
-
oh of course - sorry my big mistake - it's a reflection not a projection ><