Official Anatomy Thread

[Conzeit]

that's so wrong it becomes right...somehow.

[ndchristie]

evil-vile - your edit has extended the shins too far, which are really quite short in life (a thing I always forget and so have been studying).  The proper size i think lies somewhere between the yellow you put down and the black you made. 

In general though these legs seem a bit short for me - perhaps a third of a head - you can't turn an eight headed figure into a seven and a half headed figure without raising the ass slighly, and it was already too low in the original.  Although the bottom of the bottom should never quite be as high as the midline, for it to be 4.25/7ths of the way down (about 60%) is a bit silly .

[miascugh]

If by evil-ville you mean miascugh, then let me say, that my overpaint is strongly referenced from an anatomy book and sticks very closely to the head grid (I made the head-count on paper first, then by eye-measure in ps, might not be 100%-ly accurate, but looks decent enough to me). Anyway, I didn't use the underlying old sketch at all, but made it all new according to the material I had, so one can pretty safely say, that this is how the guy I looked at was proportioned.

Please don't make me scan just to see how far off I am

[ndchristie]

sorry, that was my bad looking though the names.  I did mean your edit.

While it may be based solidly in anatomy books and charts, these vary greatly, many of them are poorly done, and in a studio full of say 30 people from 18 to 48, I don't need a ruler to see that, according to your head counts, the knee is too high in the black and the butt is too low in the yellow .

Interestingly enough, your sketch (when i fit it all on one screen, rather than scrolling by halves like I was), actually places the butt nicely, because you haven't measured the heads equally .  So the message here is to trust your eyes and hands more than your books, because the books here would have been off ^^.

[miascugh]

(Reference, while from a book on anatomy, was a photo of a - very well-trained - average guy, though, no chart involved)

[ndchristie]

Well, I don't have that photograph so I can't deny it, but most humans are equal from the top of the knee to the hip as they are the top of the knee to the heel.  Perspective and anomalies can change this, photo-references are actually trash for charts becuse there's so much to go wrong - so i'll tell you what i've been told several times here - if you're making a chart reference and selling it as a learning guide, best to make it properly measured and representative of the average man.

[TrevoriuS]

I'll post some of my own studies later perhaps, though I'd like this to be removed from the starting post:
Prehistoric anatomy: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/diagrams/muscularsystem.jpg , there's a picture of the skeletal view from the same author - both don't match, and both are wrong ><).
Overdrivern anatomy: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/diagrams/muscles.jpg (possibly good for some muscle names, and attachment points).
Made up spine: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/skeletons/Skeleton-Side.jpg (9 Cervical, neck, vertebrae? devision in my book's still 5/12/7).
Cubic thorax: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/skeletons/human_skeleton.jpg

And ndchristie -> 'hip' is a broad area. I assume you mean the top edge, no?

[chriskot]

Wow. I just realized how rarely I actually draw things from life. It's like I go months without actually drawing anything that exists in reality... Gotta change that.

Okay. So I tried doing a few quick pencil sketches of my left hand a little while ago, maybe about 5-15 minutes for each.

(apologies for terrible quality- my scanner wasn't working so I had to use my webcam)


I can tell just by looking at it that my palm is too small in the last one. Did I mess anything else up? I don't really know any of the anatomy rules for hands.

well i found some of my grandfathers ink pens, so i thought i'd try them out on a new anatomy sketch.

I'm not sure if anyone's pointed it out yet, but one thing that keeps catching my attention is that the feet on your people seem to consistently be a little on the small side. I think that the length of a foot is supposed to be roughly half of the distance from an ankle to the bottom of the knee, or something like that. Yours look to be closer to a third of the distance in most cases.

[Atnas]

Hogarth says the length of the foot is equivalent to the length of the forearm. It checks out alright on me. 

[TrevoriuS]

You'd have to remove the.. <insert correct word here> expanded masses at the end,the places where muscles attach and where you can recognize the bone from the outside of the body - such as the ankle, elbow and wrist.
Well back to my point, if you remove these, and keep only the piece of (more) constant thickness, you would have the length of the foot. Put your big toe against your wrist, you'll see your heel is far from your elbow. Note that my feet are average (at least out here in the Netherlands) So perhaps Hogarth's as well as your, feet are large