AuthorTopic: Little Dwarf  (Read 9186 times)

Offline Conzeit

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

Re: Little Dwarf

Reply #10 on: December 26, 2008, 07:07:20 pm
personally, I think it's the way that the beard relies so much on diagonal lines that makes you ache for better resolution. Plus there's something that reasembles banding going on...and the beard seems to be more shadowed the more it sticks out...

Offline Dex

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 262
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ---
    • adamfergusonart
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/11794.htm
    • View Profile

Re: Little Dwarf

Reply #11 on: December 27, 2008, 05:57:17 am
I wouldn't mind playing a little game with these guys. :]

The style is rad, and the colors are really neat. I'd love to see more in this style. Maybe a troll or a knight, eh? Great work!

Offline Talos

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Little Dwarf

Reply #12 on: January 10, 2009, 03:43:01 am
Awesome, what do you use. Man I've fooled around in blender and the best I got was not nearly this.

Offline snader

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Little Dwarf

Reply #13 on: January 10, 2009, 12:44:43 pm
Hmm.....I tend to feel that extra-sizing the face of a model is the worst sin since the arbitrary blue ambient...

I agree - though I don't mind the blue ambient. The artist is supposed to be conveying a holistic effect - that the art is all made by the same primary atom. We're pixel artists, aren't we? We all know how mixing resolutions hurts the art and although this is inevitable to a degree in 3d it seems because of applying perspective and skew on an otherwise flat pixel map, to actually deliberately go in and make one surface much higher res than the rest just screams to me "bad priorities". Yes, I know everybody does it.

It's often done because we focus more on certain areas, for instance the face. On low-performance/retro machines this was more visible then nowadays, because nowadays filters blur the pixels (omgwhat!? yes.) so its all a lot smoother, and you'll hardly notice it when a part like the legs uses big pixels because its all smooth. On the face however it'd look blurry, and you need more pixels to create sharp lines etc.

Also part of it is distance, i think, when you see a person from a distance you see the whole body, but you wouldnt need the full 2048 texture since the model would only be say.. 600 pixels on screen. Up close you'd see the texture at a bigger scale but you'd only see the face and a part of the torso. so logically the torso would receive higher res then the legs.

It's all about focus and how often/at what size you see something on screen and the amount of detail in the surface (hair has lots of detail, but you could stretch them lengthwise a bit. faces are very complex and we notice errors faster,  concrete slabs are less detailed and having a bit bigger crack in it won't look as odd. etc etc.)