1071
Pixel Art / Re: Too bright colors?
« on: December 10, 2016, 10:04:56 pm »
If you want it to feel like sunlit grass, try lowering the saturation, but making it a little yellower. Bright doesn't have to mean highly-saturated.
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.
1072
Pixel Art / Re: What's the difference between these 2 sprites?
« on: December 08, 2016, 02:18:00 pm »
Seconding MysteryMeat.
I don't think the contrast between the green and blue was a direct issue. Mostly the problems are with each colour. The lack of hue-shifting and unity I mentioned is the only one that ties into contrast between the green and blue, but to describe that as a contrast issue is to misunderstand the problem.
Colours can contrast in three ways:
- their values, one can be dark while the other is light
- their saturation, one can be dull/grey, the other can be saturated
- their hues, e.g. yellow and blue contrast more than yellow and orange (at the same value/saturation, anyway)
In this piece, the value contrast is fine (maybe even a little low!). The saturation contrast was low because everything is over-saturated. This is where MM's analysis of the two colours clashing comes from.
The hue contrast is fine.
However, if the shadows are hue-shifted towards each other, that would leave the main shapes the same colour that they were (and therefore contrasting the same), but just the shadows would contrast a little less. This would be a contrast change, yes, but it wouldn't be one most people would immediately think of as a contrast change. Instead, it would just feel like the skin and cape exist in the same world, affecting each other.
Edit of MM's edit, with the two darker cape colours shifted towards green, and the darkest skin colour shifted towards blue (compared to the original):
(However, note that I also lowered the saturation and value on the mid blue slightly. This actually increases the contrast with the greens, but the lower hue contrast makes up for it. Starting to see why this isn't really a contrast issue?)
I don't think the contrast between the green and blue was a direct issue. Mostly the problems are with each colour. The lack of hue-shifting and unity I mentioned is the only one that ties into contrast between the green and blue, but to describe that as a contrast issue is to misunderstand the problem.
Colours can contrast in three ways:
- their values, one can be dark while the other is light
- their saturation, one can be dull/grey, the other can be saturated
- their hues, e.g. yellow and blue contrast more than yellow and orange (at the same value/saturation, anyway)
In this piece, the value contrast is fine (maybe even a little low!). The saturation contrast was low because everything is over-saturated. This is where MM's analysis of the two colours clashing comes from.
The hue contrast is fine.
However, if the shadows are hue-shifted towards each other, that would leave the main shapes the same colour that they were (and therefore contrasting the same), but just the shadows would contrast a little less. This would be a contrast change, yes, but it wouldn't be one most people would immediately think of as a contrast change. Instead, it would just feel like the skin and cape exist in the same world, affecting each other.
Edit of MM's edit, with the two darker cape colours shifted towards green, and the darkest skin colour shifted towards blue (compared to the original):
(However, note that I also lowered the saturation and value on the mid blue slightly. This actually increases the contrast with the greens, but the lower hue contrast makes up for it. Starting to see why this isn't really a contrast issue?)
1073
Pixel Art / Re: What's the difference between these 2 sprites?
« on: December 08, 2016, 03:32:55 am »
32 posted while I was typing and said more or less what I wanted to say, but I figured I'd post what I wrote anyway:
There are a number of issues with the left sprite that the right one fixes.
- Saturation is consistently high. High saturation can be a great tool for drawing attention to something, but if everything is saturated, then it loses its ability to direct the viewer and causes eye strain. The fixed version uses saturation more sparingly, so it's easier on the eyes.
- Contrast is too low in some areas, making the forms hard to read. A lot of the details and AA is almost invisible in the left version because of the poor contrast.
- The shadows and highlights are mainly just darker/lighter versions of the midtone with almost no hue-shifting, looking rather bland and disconnected. The fixed version shifts the shadows more towards blue and the highlights towards green This both looks more dynamic, and unifies the palette overall, making the character and cape look like they belong together and that light bounces between the two.
Overall, the left version is just harsh and and difficult to read. The right version is much better. That said, I don't think the drastic shift towards green was necessary in the fixed version's cape, so don't take all of those changes as necessary.
Anti-aliasing is never a good solution to poorly chosen colours. Anti-aliasing is a solution to an entirely different problem.
There are a number of issues with the left sprite that the right one fixes.
- Saturation is consistently high. High saturation can be a great tool for drawing attention to something, but if everything is saturated, then it loses its ability to direct the viewer and causes eye strain. The fixed version uses saturation more sparingly, so it's easier on the eyes.
- Contrast is too low in some areas, making the forms hard to read. A lot of the details and AA is almost invisible in the left version because of the poor contrast.
- The shadows and highlights are mainly just darker/lighter versions of the midtone with almost no hue-shifting, looking rather bland and disconnected. The fixed version shifts the shadows more towards blue and the highlights towards green This both looks more dynamic, and unifies the palette overall, making the character and cape look like they belong together and that light bounces between the two.
Overall, the left version is just harsh and and difficult to read. The right version is much better. That said, I don't think the drastic shift towards green was necessary in the fixed version's cape, so don't take all of those changes as necessary.
Anti-aliasing is never a good solution to poorly chosen colours. Anti-aliasing is a solution to an entirely different problem.
1074
Pixel Art / Re: Low color Tileset [C+C][WIP]
« on: December 05, 2016, 03:57:20 pm »
Your image embed isn't working. Try imgur, which is friendlier to hotlinking than dropbox.
The buildings appear to be in a different projection than the trees, shrubs, flowers, and rocks. We appear to be seeing a lot of the tops of the buildings, but almost exclusively the fronts of the latter.
In addition, the buildings have a fairly detailed, realistic look, while the shrubs are green blobs. They don't seem to belong together.
I can't tell what the ground tiles are meant to be. Single pixels aren't very descriptive. Is it sand with tiny bits of grass? I feel like something more solid-coloured would probably work better, and avoid those awkward halos of emptiness around objects. In addition, the ground tiles currently have fairly obvious tiling, which should be easier to avoid using sparsely interrupted solid areas compared to having an arrangement of single pixels.
The lines on the roof are a bit too intense, they're distracting. I think the detail level on them should be less dense. In addition, I can't actually tell what the lines are meant to represent, so those tiles probably need a rework anyway. One specific change I'd recommend is making them slope 45, so you can make the roof rise as much as you want*, and so that it doesn't look like you cut it off mid-tile:
(This edit only has the 45 degree angles, it does nothing to remedy the density of the details.)
* To make the roof heights variable, you shouldn't have that variability in distance between the lines/details, it should be about the same.
The buildings appear to be in a different projection than the trees, shrubs, flowers, and rocks. We appear to be seeing a lot of the tops of the buildings, but almost exclusively the fronts of the latter.
In addition, the buildings have a fairly detailed, realistic look, while the shrubs are green blobs. They don't seem to belong together.
I can't tell what the ground tiles are meant to be. Single pixels aren't very descriptive. Is it sand with tiny bits of grass? I feel like something more solid-coloured would probably work better, and avoid those awkward halos of emptiness around objects. In addition, the ground tiles currently have fairly obvious tiling, which should be easier to avoid using sparsely interrupted solid areas compared to having an arrangement of single pixels.
The lines on the roof are a bit too intense, they're distracting. I think the detail level on them should be less dense. In addition, I can't actually tell what the lines are meant to represent, so those tiles probably need a rework anyway. One specific change I'd recommend is making them slope 45, so you can make the roof rise as much as you want*, and so that it doesn't look like you cut it off mid-tile:
(This edit only has the 45 degree angles, it does nothing to remedy the density of the details.)
* To make the roof heights variable, you shouldn't have that variability in distance between the lines/details, it should be about the same.
1075
General Discussion / Re: Picking which tool I should use for pixel art
« on: December 05, 2016, 02:44:30 pm »
Seconding yrizoud.
I think rather than focusing on doing everything, programs should instead make it easy to switch to other programs, perhaps going as far as having an "Open in (thing)" option, to save you the time of launching the program and then browsing for the file (could auto-detect other installed image editors based on a hard-coded list, or perhaps users can edit a config file with names and paths). Being able to switch to another program easily and continue working on the same file helps avoid that big creative interruption of export>open>import, which is probably the main reason so many people want programs that do it all.
The other reason people like to stick to one program is so that they can have a single UI to master. But, as programs get more complex, so does the UI, and many features inevitably are clunky because they don't work with the core verbs of the program. If they try to adjust the core UI to make those things easier, everything else gets harder or more complicated to reason about and use.
I say all of this as someone who wants to use a single program for everything so much, I use Photoshop to do tiles and animation (and non-pixel art, of course).
I think rather than focusing on doing everything, programs should instead make it easy to switch to other programs, perhaps going as far as having an "Open in (thing)" option, to save you the time of launching the program and then browsing for the file (could auto-detect other installed image editors based on a hard-coded list, or perhaps users can edit a config file with names and paths). Being able to switch to another program easily and continue working on the same file helps avoid that big creative interruption of export>open>import, which is probably the main reason so many people want programs that do it all.
The other reason people like to stick to one program is so that they can have a single UI to master. But, as programs get more complex, so does the UI, and many features inevitably are clunky because they don't work with the core verbs of the program. If they try to adjust the core UI to make those things easier, everything else gets harder or more complicated to reason about and use.
I say all of this as someone who wants to use a single program for everything so much, I use Photoshop to do tiles and animation (and non-pixel art, of course).
1076
Pixel Art / Re: Help with the background.
« on: December 05, 2016, 04:58:21 am »
The UI feels very dull. I'm sure you can find prettier browns than that It's also a bit busy. I'm not sure that rocks are a good texture for UI.
The background has as much contrast as the player character, and more than that enemy. This is a problem, as it makes it really hard to read the action. Try using values (brightness levels) with less contrast in the background, and try not having the average value of the backgrounds be the same as the foreground (i.e. have the backgrounds be mostly darker or lighter than the character).
The background has as much contrast as the player character, and more than that enemy. This is a problem, as it makes it really hard to read the action. Try using values (brightness levels) with less contrast in the background, and try not having the average value of the backgrounds be the same as the foreground (i.e. have the backgrounds be mostly darker or lighter than the character).
1077
Pixel Art / Re: [C&C] Concept Style,need points of view Please
« on: December 03, 2016, 05:42:14 pm »
Overt sexuality isn't creepy, in my opinion. Something more subtle like a hint of bulge, straps, chains, and piercings that could be either sexual or actual restraints, etc would probably be more effective.
1078
Pixel Art / Re: Pixel Wings advice/help?
« on: December 02, 2016, 02:06:29 pm »
The biggest issue I see here is something no pixel-wing tutorial will help you with: they don't much like wings. Have you looked at real wings? Even if you want to stylize, it helps a lot to understand what it is you're stylizing, so that you can make the wings look "wingy".
Here's a pretty nice, quick tutorial about wing structure. You can ignore the last few pages since they're about sizing the wings for flight, which doesn't seem to be your goal. This tutorial compares of bird wings and has lots of examples. Notice the things they all have in common. Those are what make them "wings", and those are the things you'll probably want to have recognizable in your design.
The shading is also not making much sense to me. Where is your light source? Pick a light source and stick to it, instead of shading each segment individually. I think once you figure out the wing structure, you should have an easier time figuring out where the shadows should go, too. It's much harder to sensibly shade something you don't quite understand :]
Here's a pretty nice, quick tutorial about wing structure. You can ignore the last few pages since they're about sizing the wings for flight, which doesn't seem to be your goal. This tutorial compares of bird wings and has lots of examples. Notice the things they all have in common. Those are what make them "wings", and those are the things you'll probably want to have recognizable in your design.
The shading is also not making much sense to me. Where is your light source? Pick a light source and stick to it, instead of shading each segment individually. I think once you figure out the wing structure, you should have an easier time figuring out where the shadows should go, too. It's much harder to sensibly shade something you don't quite understand :]
1079
Pixel Art / Re: [C+C] Treasure Chest
« on: November 30, 2016, 09:34:47 pm »
The key thing to making motion look exciting is to avoid linear timing. By that, I mean avoid having each frame (=moment in time) be the same amount of physical movement away from its neighbouring frames, like you have in your sprite. Instead, have speed-ups and slow-downs, and have things overshoot their motion, and have segments lag behind.
In Pixelnick's example, the chest starts opening slowly, then greatly speeds up, and then it bounces a little as it comes to a stop, this feels very springy and happy. If it had bounced at the start, it would've given a different look, one of hesitation, or of difficulty opening.
Look into animation timing. It might seem like a very general and basic thing, but that seems to be your struggle currently. Learn about timing and I'm sure you'll have an easier time figuring out how to make your chest animations great, along with all your other animations. Here's a very basic illustration to get you started. All of the animations have the same number of frames and the frame rate is constant, but the timing of the motion is different.
In Pixelnick's example, the chest starts opening slowly, then greatly speeds up, and then it bounces a little as it comes to a stop, this feels very springy and happy. If it had bounced at the start, it would've given a different look, one of hesitation, or of difficulty opening.
Look into animation timing. It might seem like a very general and basic thing, but that seems to be your struggle currently. Learn about timing and I'm sure you'll have an easier time figuring out how to make your chest animations great, along with all your other animations. Here's a very basic illustration to get you started. All of the animations have the same number of frames and the frame rate is constant, but the timing of the motion is different.
1080
Pixel Art / Re: First Pixel Art
« on: November 25, 2016, 02:22:42 pm »
Try roughly blocking in the forms before you worry about pixelling individual features. It's easier to get the mistakes out of the way if you're not spending time pixel-polishing every single one.
Don't put the details in until your forms look like a cat without the details. In reality, you can tell a cat is a cat if you squint or put on someone else's glasses, that's because when the details are blurred, you still see the forms, and that's the important thing. You may even want to do this when you look at reference images - squint so that the image is blurred (or blur it heavily in Photoshop), and pay attention to the general shapes that emerge and how they correspond to the 3D form.
I recommend doing some studies from ref to get a feel for the form of a cat's head. The outline you drew looks good, but the shading within doesn't correspond to anything. A cat's head is basically a sphere with the muzzle sticking out of it, and the areas around the eyes are gentle dips/flats. Think of the shadows that would create. Don't think of your work as a flat thing, imagine the 3D forms you're depicting. If you don't know what those 3D forms should be, look at cats. If you don't have a cat you can look at, there are plenty of photos and videos online, the Internet loves cats. You don't have to draw them all, just pay attention to what you see, break it down into basic 3D forms and try to understand how they're put together.
You may also want to take a step back and do some exercises drawing simple 3D forms like cubes, spheres, and cones. It's is a common exercise for artists, but it looks like you skipped that step. By learning to draw basic 3D shapes and to think in those 3D shapes, you'll have an easier time drawing more complex 3D objects of all sorts.
Don't put the details in until your forms look like a cat without the details. In reality, you can tell a cat is a cat if you squint or put on someone else's glasses, that's because when the details are blurred, you still see the forms, and that's the important thing. You may even want to do this when you look at reference images - squint so that the image is blurred (or blur it heavily in Photoshop), and pay attention to the general shapes that emerge and how they correspond to the 3D form.
I recommend doing some studies from ref to get a feel for the form of a cat's head. The outline you drew looks good, but the shading within doesn't correspond to anything. A cat's head is basically a sphere with the muzzle sticking out of it, and the areas around the eyes are gentle dips/flats. Think of the shadows that would create. Don't think of your work as a flat thing, imagine the 3D forms you're depicting. If you don't know what those 3D forms should be, look at cats. If you don't have a cat you can look at, there are plenty of photos and videos online, the Internet loves cats. You don't have to draw them all, just pay attention to what you see, break it down into basic 3D forms and try to understand how they're put together.
You may also want to take a step back and do some exercises drawing simple 3D forms like cubes, spheres, and cones. It's is a common exercise for artists, but it looks like you skipped that step. By learning to draw basic 3D shapes and to think in those 3D shapes, you'll have an easier time drawing more complex 3D objects of all sorts.