[WIP] Trioculi

[Arachne]

I didn't really mean to start working on yet another piece, but I needed a break from the devil and then I got inspired by something Lackey drew (second from the right).



And it turned into this. Medieval fishermen and those things. I might need some help with the perspective on this one, since I don't really feel that I know what I'm doing. I'm pretty happy with it, so I hope I'll manage to finish it. I can't recall having pixelled sky or sea before, so that'll be interesting.

Edit:

[FrostPumpkin]

That is a compilation of some things I love to see in a piece of art, some awesome big water/swamp monsters+triple eyes on a face+light eyes. 

Reminds me of some Hayao Miyazaki art.
There is no need of perspective help to me, but I'm not very qualified about this  , so I'll let experts talk about this   

[ndchristie]

Actually it reminds me of the red planet miniseries from when i was a kid.  Used to play it on saturdays sometimes.

for something relevent, there's no real reason that a light that isn't much further away should be darker.  If there's heavy fog, this will need to be suggested, but otherwise it makes the eyes look like they are matte objects rather than lights.  Last light thing, if it's that choppy out (and it would be with monstarz rising out of the depths you'll want to extend the green refelection nearly the entire length of the water between shore and source, ignoring it ONLY where the big one's tentacles block the reflection path.

[Lackey]

This is really amazing, already, in its atmosphere.  It was a bit uncanny because Helm linked me to this and I could have sworn I had imagined the same thing before.  You're doing a better job than I could !

I had something like it mind when I drew the icon too so, uh, well spotted!

I think what's happening with the perspective, is that the base of the nearer creature is too low, and the curvature too obvious. That makes it appear closer to the viewer, and that throws off the apparent scale (judging by the birds that are flying in front of it).  Based on the size of the figures in the foreground as well it seems like the creature is quite close, maybe closer than you intend?  I think basically you have to tilt the whole thing down.  It might also add to the image if you make the fog effect a bit more pronounced, making them seem more massive.

Er, I tried doing an edit but failed.  Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

[Rosse]

I'm looking forward to the finished image, Arachne, great job so far!
I think the perspective is correct so far. The only thing I assume is that you're not sure where the horizon is (sorry if I'm wrong). For that reason I made a small paintover to show the horizon (if the two “triocui” are about the same size) and scales. Assumed the fisherman is approximately 1.7m high, the “trioculi” is 23.1m high (In case you was wondering).
I'm not sure what you wanted to display in the cyan marked spot. Is it a second fisherman, a shadow or a reflection? If it would be a second fisherman (approximately same size as the other), he must be bigger (assuming the horizon is correct). In case you don't know how to cast a shadow I can show you in a further edit.
I second the idea about increasing the fog, but just heavy “ground fog” and heavy atmospheric perspective. I hope you know what I mean. Please ask if I should elaborate.

[ndchristie]

Rosse - your methods are sound but your measurments are way off, lol.  the second red line you drew goes straight through the stomach of the rear one, NOT where he meets the water, so you're no longer comparing like points (and therefor no longer creating perspective).


Heres' what i get, it's very shallow as could be expected :


red lines are horizon created by monsters, yellow lines are their bases (points of reference).  Yellow-Green lines represent perspective created by figures, this obviously is too low meaning that either A - the second fisherman is significantly lower down (which is impossible because of the plane represented by the water next to the closer man's feet) or B - the perspective is broken.  Light green figure is moved up into working perspective so that you can see that the current figure is submerged to just about his own height in water.  Blue and violet lines indicate the proper height (arbitrary width) of a figure whose feet are planted on solid ground at the position of the character here.

Possible Solutions :
- get rid of the water to the left and right (and the boat) and replace it with a downwards slope that will meet the other man
- make the man larger to fill height of lavender frame and also change the boat.
- say screw perspective

(PS : this gives the monster the much more logical height of seven meters visible above the water, aka a gundam.)

[Helm]

ndchristie who taught you to measure perspective like this? Or what you are measuring? It simply makes no sense to me! My own perspective knowledge isn't very extensive and I am not very formally trained, but I can do multi-point perspective and even curved points and whatnot, and this is quite unlike anything I've ever seen anyone slap on a piece to explain perspective and depth. Are you improvising?



Arachne, you're doing a very ambitious project here. There are many concerns. One of them is the effect of mist (if you're going for mist). I suggest you look at a lot of misty moors and lakes on gi and see how the mist mainly homogenizes everything in the picture, making the perspective seemingly break and so on. You NEED this effect of 'is it far away or is it near?' that the mist gives you because it helps the drama of the subject matter.

Right now you have a very high shot of the action, and a high shot (since we're human beings and we're used to look at he horison from 2 meters high at most) dehumanizes the situation. We become the silent observer, uninterested in the terror that is going on. Is this what you want? I don't think so. I suggest you go with an actual human point of view, if not even toads' view (I didn't mock up toads view it requires extensive third point perspective reworking) to emphasize the powerlessness against such a creature.

Also, in Lovecraftian fashion, I will suggest that you show much less of the creature and much less detail. Let the mind imagine, that's the rule of cosmic horror. If it is CLOSE, it is more defined and darker, if it is FAR (and such a creature would have to be) then it is coated more in mist.

Don't scribble when you are setting up a construction of a picture. Every superfluous line muddles up the concept. Place firm geometric shapes and figure out their coorelations before you attempt any rendering.

[ndchristie]

ndchristie who taught you to measure perspective like this? Or what you are measuring? It simply makes no sense to me! My own perspective knowledge isn't very extensive and I am not very formally trained, but I can do multi-point perspective and even curved points and whatnot, and this is quite unlike anything I've ever seen anyone slap on a piece to explain perspective and depth. Are you improvising?

I'm self taught perspective beyond the very basics (and by self i mean strictly self - little input, no internet), so nobody showed me to do it like this and you *could* call it improvising, but it's not at all guesswork, it's all correct perspective.  perspective is built like all projections from very, very basic fundamentals that require little training, only obedience and creativity within the rules.

As far as what i'm measuring, i am assuming that the shapes of trioculus A and triculus B are congruent (not necessarily true), but this assumption is the only thing we can go on because there's nothing else to measure by.  Therefor I took one of a thousand equal measurements (in this case, the width of the beast where it meets the water - chosen because they are the most likely to be constant) and put lines past the endpoints.

For the light green lines I took the height of a man and put lines past those endpoints (head and feet).  They converged at a point lower than the horizon found in the first part indicating that the rear man was significantly lower than the foremost.

The dark green lines are found by drawing a line vertically from the convergence of the light green lines to the horizon, giving us the angle of the two men as seen on the horizontal plane that extends to the horizon from his feet, rather than the pitched one that they create.  From the intersection of the vertical and the horizon, we draw two lines (one to each endpoint of the man's height) to find the proper height of a man who is standing just so far back and to the right as the other man, but at the same altitude.

The last step, finding the blue height, disregards horizontal distance entirely, but it can because it doesn't define any orthogonals, only height.  it extends a line past the feet of the rear figure, and horizontals from the feet and head of the frontmost, then recedes back to match the depth of the feet of the rear while maintaining the height of the frontmost.

you will notice that my measuring matches up almost precisely with your visual estimation, which speaks to the value of both methods - trusting your tools like perspective and trusting your eyes to not need them.

[Helm]

The flashing triangle broke my mind when I first looked at your chart. I now realize it's the result of using too many perspective points on the same explanation overlay so it's not so much that you're doing something severily wrong but just that I could not understand the chart. That would be pretty awesome reverse perspective though, no? Things get smaller the closer they get. THE HOUNDS OF TINDALOS. SHAMBLER RENDS DIMENSION

If you'd like to avoid MINDBREAK in the future you could visually define your vanishing points by Xs or Os with little Xs in them as it is commonly done, color-code the lines from a specific point ONLY with that color and so on.

The red lines that signify where the creatures are in terms of depth are correct and what I also used more or less. The exact smae perspective point can be used to describe the human figures on the front if you so desire, there's no need to overcomplicate. Perspective is a consideration of depth and priority, clarity is important when you try to explain something to someone. It's not just seeing it, it's being able to communicate it

[Cure]

Arachne's got a reading assignment for the next time she checks this post.
I'm not going to comment on whatever technical stuff with rainbow lines we're talkin' about, but that edit helm made with the horizon raised makes for a much more interesting picture.  Perhaps because it gives a better sense that the monsters are behind them, or because we're seeing the scene more from the humans' perspective.l

[qunit]

those 3 eyed creatures are really well made... they have alot od character built on them.... you can almost hear them call in a deep dolphin-like call..
the birds really add to the largness if those creatures.
i think it would be great if you shade the eyes alittle bit.... and use some more colors and shapes in the backround...
overfall its a great scene with great creatures

[TrevoriuS]

With the current perspective it also looks like the monsters are already 'above' the running people, which definately adds to the atmosphere. Of course you should make corrections to the perspective, but you may also try an impressionistic effect.

[ndchristie]

color-code the lines from a specific point ONLY with that color and so on.

I thought I did this?  ANd for the record there's a grand total of 2 vanishing points, with one subordinate point showing slope.  I don't think that's too many at all, considering a proper assessment could have used five or six, with subdivisions and such to judge scale.  I think it's really dumbed down personally if you read my original description (which says everything that the second one says, only faster).

The exact smae perspective point can be used to describe the human figures on the front if you so desire, there's no need to overcomplicate.

Actually no they can't.  Well, they can, but because the people are not aligned with that vanishing point, this would actually take more steps, more lines, and more confusion.  this would have created a thousand lines going to the same place which would i think have been far more confusing.  Better just to have them start their own process with only a few lines so that you can see how broken it is (new horizon would need to be underground, etc).

Perspective is a consideration of depth and priority, clarity is important when you try to explain something to someone. It's not just seeing it, it's being able to communicate it

I might have come in from the start with an explanation of my process if this was a piece about learning perspective, but it's not, it's a piece about monsters.  Personally i felt that it was much more sensible to say just to say "this is what's here, here's what you can do" than be like hey arachne let me take you on a magic carpet ride through perspective theory and then maybe talk about the answer .  TBH i think you're the only person who would care about the process  .  Most people don't want to hear about it, it's easy enough to just see the results.  If i didn't think that rosse's work was wrong i wouldn't even have made/posted the diagrams.  The step by step i gave isn't even a proper step by step, and there's no reason to assume that someone knows the processes, so to explain it to people who aren't accustomed would take pages of text.

Sorry for the off-topic, arachne.

[Turbo]

I understood ndchristie's perspective breakdown just fine, and agree with the points made. Before his edit, i didn't realise the two dudes were supposed to be on the same plane (i thought the furthest one was actually lower, behind a dune, and the closest one on top of the same dune).
Although, assuming from the perspective indicated by the shape of the closest monster's body where it hits the water, it shows the horizon to be at the height helm showed (crossing the vertical half-point of the picture), where the observer would be above the scene, maybe standing on top of a hill. Contrary to helm's edit, i think the closeness indicated between the monster and the running folk shows a more immediate sense of dread, instead of not showing how much little ground is left between them by changing the perspective point (the original's composition reminds me more of a painting; helm's reminds me more of a movie).

Assuming the perspective stays the same: if these beasts are so massive, they're relatively close to the beach (or lakeshore?). The water there isn't too deep, so, they're not much larger underneath the water, which detracts from their potential huegeness. If you want to change this, change the shape of the monster/water intersection to show further distance, or change the shore to show something other than sand (maybe rocks, which could imply further depths to the waters near them).

Anyways, looking great, and great potential. I like the vertical format you used for your latest pieces canvas.

[Ben2theEdge]

Regardless of technical details, Helm's edit with the lower vantage point serves the drama of the scene much better. Viewing the monster from above makes it feel small, viewing it from below makes it feel huge and puts us at the same level as the fleeing characters, making us more sympathetic towards them.

[edit] I think Helm already made most of these points but I second.

[Arachne]

You guys are awesome! Thanks a lot.



Here's what I have so far. Not quite sure how to combine the light reflected in the water with the mist.

The other guy is supposed to be lower than the closest one and behind the mound there. Maybe it's more apparent now.

[ndchristie]

The other guy is supposed to be lower than the closest one and behind the mound there. Maybe it's more apparent now.

my main point was that he cannot be lower than the other guy until you fix the shoreline, which the way you have it clearly suggests that it is inches from the front man and not more than a few inches lower than his feet - this area must be changed/obscured for the mound to work, because water is going to imply a plane and right now that plane is too high.  it's not the object that's the problem, it's the space in which it resides .

as far as the glow goes, what is fog other than water in air?  the lights should color the fog a bit where they have a path to reflect it.

[Helm]

Yes generally avoid crispness in fogbound environs. It will be a nice challenge for a medium that is so precise as pixel art and an artist that is so meticulous as you. Let some vagueness flow.

The way to get that mound to work is to separate it from the 'back' mound where the boat is placed. Make 3 distinctive planes: sea, early beach, top (darker or lighter ) mound where the girl is placed on, and which obscures half the other sailor.

oh btw to nathan: it was very difficult for me to read your reply to me without thinking you were talking in some sort of ironic fashion. I realized it was because you italic'ed the font to I guess, delegate that you were being off-topic. You have in the past used font coloring and whatever else to achieve this also. Italics isn't a good choice because it's closely associated on the internet with you know, being facetious and whatnot. I suggest just putting an OT tag on the top of the post, nobody complaints if the discussion is even marginally pertinent to the main thread anyway - as it were in our case.

[ndchristie]

oh btw to nathan

woops!  I'm not much of an internet-guy (this is my only forum, pixeljoint my only gallery, partisan my only blog...) - wasn't aware of an italics-sarcasm connection.  noted!

[Arachne]

Alright, first I removed the mound so I could more easily place that guy correctly. I hope I did. Then brightened the mound and darkened the rest. Hopefully not too subtle. This time I had a bit of trouble with the waves and making the sand look wet. Faded the closest creature out a bit more and started cleaning up. I don't think I'll mind obscuring the rest as much once I've spent a few more hours AAing that stuff.

as far as the glow goes, what is fog other than water in air?  the lights should color the fog a bit where they have a path to reflect it.

True, it's all water, but a cloud of miniscule droplets reflects light differently from a solid body of water.

[Froli]

-edit-
Ugh never mind this crit, I thought that area is still part water. It was fog after all

[Akira]

That AA is immense! nice work.
As for wet sand - it's darker and it reflects light better than dry sand. usually better than water too. basically because it creates a thin, flat surface of water it acts kind of like glass. Also wherever there is wet sand there should be flat ground. The waves look great.

[Dex]

Yeah, you've got some incredible AA going on there! This is looking good, I can't wait for the finished piece!

[Feron]

i think you need to rethink the position of the reflection in the water of the eyes of the second monster.

also, you were initially right that the eyes of the one furthest away will be dimmer, especially if its foggy.

[Arachne]

How about this?

i think you need to rethink the position of the reflection in the water of the eyes of the second monster.

How do you mean?

[Turbo]

I love how smoooooth it is. It's smoooooooooooth. Smoooooooooo

I didn't realise the creature was hollow in its mid-section, but looks cool that way.
This shows a great feeling of depth.
I like it.

[kamionek]

it's awesome
all the colours and how emotionless these spaghetti monsters look like remind me of shadow of the colossus

shouldn't those reflections from second monster's eyes' be little higher?

[Lunar]

shouldn't those reflections from second monster's eyes' be little higher?

Not if the one in the back is looking at the kids as well, right?

Anyway, love the peice.  Great work on the AA.  And depth, the fog is awesome.

-Lunar

[Ryumaru]

Good lord the fact that you haven't killed yourself after fully rendering this is insane. Beautiful :]

[Feron]

Holy fuck that is some fantastic rendering!!

i also would have thought the reflection would be higher, but im probably wrong.

Great work   

[sharprm]

Great piece.

For the monster on the right i think the eyes should only be reflected close to the beach because thats what i saw one night with the moon's reflection.



It'd be good if someone found some ref pics for lights reflecting on water with ripples (note: if its not flat then can't simply apply law of reflection).

[Dusty]

Actually, you shouldn't see any eye reflections at all from the one on the right. The reflection of the monster is physically going to be a vertical flip from the base of the monster... which would make the eye reflections way out of the canvas.

[Froli]

Looks awesome, but I have to agree with Dusty the light would be somewhere around that area and we have to remember the fog and all for the 2nd monster..
Before I went to bed hours ago,  I tested this  with 2 candles + some water outside the house to satisfy my curiosity. it sounds geeky Specially with a tenant fortunately seeing me with a weird look on her face.

[PypeBros]

@dusty: it can make sense to have reflects of the eye's light in the water since you've got waves. What you shown is the reflection on a still, horizontal water plane, but waves change reflections, distording the mirrored image, and can send you rays of lights that you wouldn't have seen otherwise.

[Rox]

Yup, those kind of reflections are absolutely possible on any surface that isn't perfectly still. From my experience reflected light almost always ends up looking like a somewhat scattered beam, on lakes and such, because of the water's surface being uneven enough to reflect the light in virtually every direction at the same time. Like this.

But this also depends on how sunken in the thing's eyes are. It looks to me like the light wouldn't reach the water because it's hitting the... strands, or whatever, surrounding the eyes. So, I don't think there should be a reflection, but not for the reason Dusty stated.

[PypeBros]

okay ... so if they're deep in the trioculus, they're behaving like a car's lights rather than like Sun, sending a directed beam of light rather than glowing equally in all directions.

Artistically speaking, i'd opt for reflections but maybe that would go against the freakiness of the scene (i'm more into fairy tales feary tales, so i'm the wrong guy to judge ^^")

[Froli]

I would agree rox, but we have to take account that monster is quite close to the shore and the perspective that arachne used. I got this picture from google Flooded Piazza San Marco, the only missing is the waves. hmm


I wonder changing one of the light hole's angle downwards, towards their prey would make more sense  . Since the reflected light makes the picture better.

[LoTekK]

Froli, the image you've chosen actually proves pype and rox's points about reflections on a perturbed reflective surface; you've simply chosen to ignore that? Sure, Dusty would be correct if the surface of the water was perfectly still, but that would make no sense at all, considering, among other things, there are large creatures moving in it.

Arachne:

Quote from: ndchristie on August 24, 2008, 03:46:31 AM
as far as the glow goes, what is fog other than water in air?  the lights should color the fog a bit where they have a path to reflect it.
True, it's all water, but a cloud of miniscule droplets reflects light differently from a solid body of water.

Yes, it does (well, it'll refract, in this case). Which backs up ndchristie's point that the lights should light up the fog some. That much fog would result in a noticeable halo effect around point lights.

[Froli]

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I still have some doubts if that kind of light source and perspective that close would create the same effect. If that area that girl running to is still a "perturbed reflective surface" then the light can reach up to the monster. But it's land and grass would it be still the same?

[Dusty]

Ya, I can't say I understand the physics of lights reflecting off a wavy surface. I guess it is true though... perhaps someone can enlighten as to how a reflected light can be distorted so much? I don't think it has anything to do with waves, as even lights from car headlights on a rainy day can distort just like that(off of the thin layer of water off the road, which is pretty still).

I still don't think the reflections fit for the one on the right. They would be substantially more distorted than the one on the left, and it just looks odd when you don't see the whole reflection, or at least, the 'source' of it.

[Ben2theEdge]

*EDIT: Nevermind, I misread the question*

[Indigo]

my personal impression is to say 'screw it' about the water-reflection critique... not because it's not valid (and I'm loving the awesome critique and discussion about it), but because the end result you have now is very visually appealing regardless.  removing the reflections from under the front-most monster breaks the water-effect you have going on.  In this particular case I'd say art before science

[Arachne]

Thanks a lot! Glad you guys liked it! And you've brought up some interesting questions.

my personal impression is to say 'screw it' about the water-reflection critique... not because it's not valid (and I'm loving the awesome critique and discussion about it), but because the end result you have now is very visually appealing regardless.  removing the reflections from under the front-most monster breaks the water-effect you have going on.  In this particular case I'd say art before science

Well, it doesn't look as if I'll be making any radical changes. It's the first time I've drawn something like this, though, so I'm just happy to look into it. I've been feeling that I didn't quite know what I was doing, so I think it's needed.

shouldn't those reflections from second monster's eyes' be little higher?

I thought that the fog would block the light in that part, but I don't know if it actually would. I've been trying to find some photos of reflections with mist on top, but I haven't had much luck. Would it be the same as if the eyes themselves were there, or would the light be too dispersed? Edit: I don't think looking at the reflection of the sun in the water is as bad as looking at the sun itself, so I think that answers it.

For the monster on the right i think the eyes should only be reflected close to the beach because thats what i saw one night with the moon's reflection.

I think the water would have to be more still for the reflection to taper that much away from the center.

But this also depends on how sunken in the thing's eyes are. It looks to me like the light wouldn't reach the water because it's hitting the... strands, or whatever, surrounding the eyes. So, I don't think there should be a reflection, but not for the reason Dusty stated.

Good point, but I didn't imagine the eyes to be that sunken in. The idea is that you'd see some of the light reflected in the surrounding tissue.

I wonder changing one of the light hole's angle downwards, towards their prey would make more sense  . Since the reflected light makes the picture better.

I don't imagine the creatures would see the two men as prey. More like a few ants on a path. You'll crush them without knowing they were even there. Of course, if you go too close to the ant hill, they might start bothering you, and you might even decide to have them removed if they're in the spot you've been going to for picnics or whatever.

Yes, it does (well, it'll refract, in this case). Which backs up ndchristie's point that the lights should light up the fog some. That much fog would result in a noticeable halo effect around point lights.

I think what you would be seeing, if the eyes were luminescent enough, would be a cone of illuminated fog/mist, which from the front would look like the halo you describe. I don't know if the fog here is thick enough for that, at least not for the closest creature. Maybe the second one, but the eyes would have to give off a lot of light for that to happen. On the other hand, if these creatures hunt in the depths of the sea, that might not be such a bad idea. However, something subtle might be tricky to pull off with the current palette.

I also tried to explain how the ripples reflect the light. Not quite precise, but you get the idea. On each of these ripple tops, there's a spot where the angle is such that the light is reflected towards you.



Hope that clears something up.

[Opacus]

I just want to pop buy so I can say: Holy fuck.

That's all I have to contribute sorry

[Arachne]

I realized that having the reflection of the arms of the closest creature block out the reflection of the eyes of the second didn't really make sense since the water's not still, so I changed that. I also tried to make the wet sand reflect some of the light as well, since that's what it would do, but I couldn't make it work without drawing too much attention to it.

[Destiny]

Oh man.
Thats awesome >:
I couldnt imagine doing something so tedious (yet).
Good job.

[Organ_House]

Dang, so pretty I could cry 

The only suggestion I'd add is possibly changing the bottom of the creature in the foreground so it parts the water with a half-circle shape. Right now it looks sorta flat-ish.
Please forgive my horrible ruining of yer art

I figure it's body would extend out from the water about at that red line.

Also the shoreline looks way too close imo.

[rabidbaboy]

Well, first off, whoa

It's safe to say I would've considered your first step my finished piece if this were my project.

So much well-done textures! The grass, water, tentacles, fog, clouds... The grass..!

One question though, are the people scared of the monsters? Are they supposed to be running, because they look as if they were taking a stroll, like the monsters were pets. That seriously detracts from the "whoa monster" feel this is trying to convey (I think that's what it's trying to convey, hehe). Maybe you can have the woman stumbling in her hurry to get away, or even a more active pose, hands groping for distance, etc...

On the discussion about the light, I think it's fair to assume that these monsters could move their eyes (aka spotlights ), so if you wanted, you could make it point its eyes at its prey (aka the humansss), and cue uber dramatic lighting omg behind the humans. It's your call though.

Right Click>Save As