AuthorTopic: 8bit Pixel Art  (Read 11245 times)

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #10 on: February 24, 2008, 09:01:32 pm
the sun can't possibly hit a scene from exactly one point.

Astrophysics 101: The sun is ONE object and such pretty much is ONE point of lightsource. Also light can not go around corners.
Go outside when it's sunny, place something in your yard, then take a piece of cardboard or a book so that the shadow covers said something and see if it has super distinct shading.
There can be some bouncelights and such, but it would still be minimal if it's in complete shadow.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline zephiel87

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • ZephPixel.com

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #11 on: February 24, 2008, 09:08:35 pm
Yeah, i didn't word that very well, the sun itself can't light an object from more than one point, but there will be some shading from bounce light and refraction and such.
but yes, it would be minimal, I did admit to shading more prominently than would actually be noticeable.

Offline Terley

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 661
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Terley is King, but he needs a new avatar.
    • View Profile

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #12 on: February 24, 2008, 09:17:02 pm
wouldn't it depend on how strong the lightsource is, maybe the sun is behind a cloud ?  :-X

would of thought the sun lights up the whole sky giving anything with view of light some dimension, if anything don't give the pipe in the shade so much contrast.
I've not got anything interesting to type here..

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #13 on: February 25, 2008, 12:23:50 am
it actually turns into an inside-outside thing, where the interior parts and curves receive significantly less reflected light (therefor having very obvious shading at times, look at your hand or something), but that's not useful in this case where the entire thing is pretty much convex.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Kren

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #14 on: February 25, 2008, 01:41:52 am
hmm, it seems that the mario statue is falling down.. Am I right ? or are my eyes failing <-<.

Offline Terley

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 661
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Terley is King, but he needs a new avatar.
    • View Profile

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #15 on: February 25, 2008, 02:23:53 am
He said there were some perspective issues but I think it adds to making the big mario more towering, more interesting imo, but yea kinda does look like he's about to topple.
I've not got anything interesting to type here..

Offline Conzeit

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1448
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Camus
    • conzeit
    • View Profile
    • CONZEIT

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #16 on: February 29, 2008, 06:31:59 am
Ptoing: You said shadows "should not multiply"  I think that phrase came from one of Arne's/Prom's tutorials, and you did not understand the concept he was conveying.

http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/tuts/shadows.jpg do you mean "shadows dont add"? what is shown there is true, but you missunderstand it if you think it means anything under a shadow shouldnt have light and dark. Look at the correct examples, the parts of the object under shadow have shading but it is far subtler and uses far less contrast, this is because they have the diffuse shading a reflected light produces.

What is true and what Prom examplifies is that when a lightsource makes two objects project shadows, wherever those two shadows overlap eachother they should nod add, instead they should merge.
This is because when something is "in the shadow" what makes it look slightly darker than anything around it is that it's only being lit by reflected light. This is common sense, look at anything around you under a shadow, it DOES NOT look flat, but all the volume on it is very vague and it's hard to tell what the lightsource is.
http://www.itchy-animation.co.uk/tutorials/02-bright-overcast-tree.jpg this is a good example of what something lit only trough diffuse (reflected) light looks like. See how hard it is to tell what it's lightsource is?


http://www.itchy-animation.co.uk/tutorials/light03.htm
Now, when this happens in an exterior the object is still pretty well lit even when in shadow, because it is being lit by the SKY. When the sky reflects the light of the sun, since it is such a big object that makes it so strong it can be considered a second lightsource.
The only difference is that anything lit by the sky doesnt show very clearly what is lighting it up, since the sky is all around everything in the outside the lightsource would pretty much be all around the object.

Now....for the whole "should the shadow reach the tube" thing:

Consider what the picture is about, everything in it but the statue is completely irrealistically shaded and placed in perspective, but this is about an irreal character in a NES world that is characterstically badly shaded, so putting ONLY the character and the main object he's interacting with in decent shading and perspective makes sense as an artistic choice.....so if he wants to over-extend the shadow a little for a dramatic effect..that's good
I'm gonna aim my critiques to making sure both the character and the statue are both rendered with the same quality and have the same level of protagonism, because otherwise the picture completely fails at communicating what it was made to communicate. 

But if you want to get realistic yeah, given how strongly the light hits the top of the statue, I do think the sun should be pretty much on top of the statue and it should not project over the tube, but the long shadow works for the picture so I didnt say anything about that.


« Last Edit: February 29, 2008, 07:21:02 am by Conceit »

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #17 on: February 29, 2008, 12:31:32 pm
No need to write an essay, I know what I wrote and I know how this stuff works. Just said that if that pipe is covered in shadows it would not have such a defined light on one side. I know about reflected light, kthxbye.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #18 on: February 29, 2008, 09:43:38 pm
Mario's gesture is not clear. He's polishing I take it. Move the hand to a clearer position so the body language reads better, we can see the item in mario's hand better and the point of the picture isn't undermined by the execution. This is wonderful otherwise!

Ptoing please don't 'kthnxbye' Camus for doing all the work to explain his position, we're here to help each other.

Another point of interest is that the three-point perspective on the huge mario doesn't work because the third point is placed too close on the horison, and the warping is too extreme.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2008, 09:45:41 pm by Helm »

Offline spik

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Coffeehat Studios
    • View Profile
    • Coffeehat Studios

Re: 8bit Pixel Art

Reply #19 on: March 02, 2008, 07:21:52 am
something looks wrong with the fences. they almost seem to be on different angles. other than that, everything else seems to have been mentioned. excellent work. :)