PDA

View Full Version : Not so Hidden LightWave Logo



WilliamVaughan
10-25-2016, 07:28 PM
I thought some of you might get a kick out of this character I designed for the Asylum earlier this year. The staff kinda took on a life of its own :beerchug:


134916

ernpchan
10-25-2016, 11:03 PM
Ha! Very clever. ;)

jeric_synergy
10-25-2016, 11:54 PM
Fun, and sly.

William, do you sketch out these characters based on scripts or what? I've toyed with the idea of multiple "spinners" that would randomize character traits to kinda jumpstart the ol' creative engine.

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 07:55 AM
Fun, and sly.

William, do you sketch out these characters based on scripts or what? I've toyed with the idea of multiple "spinners" that would randomize character traits to kinda jumpstart the ol' creative engine.


Depends where Im at in the moment. Alot of times I find its quicker to block out the character directly in 3D. When I do sketch the sketches are extremely loose and rough. As seen here:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shut-up-get-back-creating-william-vaughan?trk=mp-reader-card

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/make-bad-art-william-vaughan?trk=mp-reader-card

jasonwestmas
10-26-2016, 08:31 AM
Nice designs, comparing your drawing style to mine, I wouldn't say your drawings are loose and rough, just flat looking. I suppose you're only looking for the silhouette and very general expression.

Was this character for a TV live video/movie character? Or a "feature film".

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 09:17 AM
Nice designs, comparing your drawing style to mine, I wouldn't say your drawings are loose and rough, just flat looking. I suppose you're only looking for the silhouette and very general expression.

Was this character for a TV live video/movie character? Or a "feature film".

Compared to my days as a traditional illustrator these are rough... but I get what your saying... no real shading.

This is one of 6 characters I created for the Asylum for a movie called Trolland. It was released yesterday on DVD and will be on TV this month as well. My only role was designing and modeling 6 of the characters before production started. You can see my work on the project here: http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=8&t=126958


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91Gz8GYoS4L._SL1500_.jpg

jasonwestmas
10-26-2016, 10:01 AM
well I have to say these are my favorite works by you. Did you get a lot of "useful" feedback from Asylum while working on these? were you the art director in this particular case?

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 10:16 AM
well I have to say these are my favorite works by you. Did you get a lot of "useful" feedback from Asylum while working on these? Maybe you were the art director in this particular case?

Appreciate that.

The only feedback/changes i had on all of the characters was to add individual lashes to this character:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/forums.content.luxology.com/images/full/4cdc5ada87ac53bf07a3dd731d7b758c.jpg

Originally the lashes were one solid strip.

Ron was the Director but gave me alot of freedom on these characters.

jasonwestmas
10-26-2016, 10:31 AM
Excellent. I'm excited to see them animated!

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 10:34 AM
Excellent. I'm excited to see them animated!

I'd hold off on that excitement. While I havent seen a single frame I heard that the production was a mess. I've been told that I shouldnt see it... but you never know.

Some additional work Ive done recently can be seen here: https://www.artstation.com/artist/williamvaughan

bazsa73
10-26-2016, 11:43 AM
This guy could be Yoda's druid-troll uncle.

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 11:50 AM
This guy could be Yoda's druid-troll uncle.



lol... very true.

bazsa73
10-26-2016, 01:39 PM
lol... very true.

Just out of curiosity William, I presume you model your characters in the old school way, in LW or Modo (I dont know your preference, maybe both)
or do you create a sculpt in Zbrush or similar app and then you create a clean retopology?

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 01:41 PM
Just out of curiosity William, I presume you model your characters in the old school way, in LW or Modo (I dont know your preference, maybe both)
or do you create a sculpt in Zbrush or similar app and then you create a clean retopology?



I create all of my character models from a 6 poly cube. From there its all Bevel and Spin Edges for the most part... that and pushing and pulling points.

Farhad_azer
10-26-2016, 04:16 PM
Hi William,

Probably not a best idea to ask this question here (and i have asked this before) BUT i have zero talent (and i mean zero) on drawing and sketch. do i still have any chance to make characters in 3D?

I look forward to hear your take on this please.

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 04:28 PM
Hi William,

Probably not a best idea to ask this question here (and i have asked this before) BUT i have zero talent (and i mean zero) on drawing and sketch. do i still have any chance to make characters in 3D?

I look forward to hear your take on this please.


Absolutely. I have worked with many an artists that couldn't draw to save their life but could create amazing models. I would recommend learning to model characters by starting with other artists designs. Grab a nice turn around sheet (front and side drawing of the character).

There's a longer response to this but ultimately I believe that you can create amazing models and not have a traditional art background. I've taught many a student that had zero art background that have gone on to be successful 3d artists working in the industry.

Best of luck!

Matt
10-26-2016, 04:39 PM
Haha, nice Will!

hrgiger
10-26-2016, 05:16 PM
Yeah William, well here is my ever so subtle nod to Lightwave rendered in Modo with Mesh lights.
134927

jasonwestmas
10-26-2016, 06:44 PM
Absolutely. I have worked with many an artists that couldn't draw to save their life but could create amazing models. I would recommend learning to model characters by starting with other artists designs. Grab a nice turn around sheet (front and side drawing of the character).

There's a longer response to this but ultimately I believe that you can create amazing models and not have a traditional art background. I've taught many a student that had zero art background that have gone on to be successful 3d artists working in the industry.

Best of luck!

Yup, as long as they have good reference I think a lot of people who don't draw or paint can 3d model or sculpt fantastic things with some study.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah William, well here is my ever so subtle nod to Lightwave rendered in Modo with Mesh lights.
134927

LOL! Not so subtle indeed.

jeric_synergy
10-26-2016, 06:50 PM
I create all of my character models from a 6 poly cube. From there its all Bevel and Spin Edges for the most part... that and pushing and pulling points.
If I was a noob I'd think you were pulling my leg. Of course, I know you could do this.

++++++
For people who "can't" sketch, there's always Sculpy or Play-Doh. Seriously.

Surrealist.
10-26-2016, 07:11 PM
I'll be the odd man out and just flat out disagree.

I won't go as far as to say that you have to be a master at drawing first. Nor will I say that you can't model if you can't draw. And it would be silly to say this in a way that discourages people from modeling if they can not draw to save their lives. Doesn't take a genius to see that that could be very discouraging to some artists. Including me. :)

But I have read these arguments many times before and they usually go unqualified.

So a better question to ask yourself is, "will I improve my skills as a 3D artist if I hunker down and learn to draw?" And the answer to that is a resounding yes. Assuming that you actually learn some art basics along the way. So I think the flip side of it is you can not just give a blanket unqualified answer. It is slightly short-sighted. It needs to have some qualifications in there.

There are numerous things to consider. One is that most if not all productions start with some kind of a sketch form. It is faster and even more fluid than sculpting. So as a generalist, right there you are limited if you can't draw. You can say I am not a designer. OK. fine. But then you are also saying you are limited to not or designing. It is a limitation. Or you design with sculpting which is also a time limitation by comparison. It is a qualified answer. There is no yes or no.

Another thing to consider. How far are you going to be taking the modeling process? Are you going to be painting textures? 3D or 2D? And it does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to realize that again if you are 2D challenged you are actually limited in the things you can do. Even 3D painting (and sculpting for that matter) are really 2D skills. And if your 2D suffers so will those. Because using a tablet to draw paint or sculpt is the same skill/dexterity as drawing.

My best modeler in my studio is my worst 2D guy. What does that say about him? It says I can not rely on him to sculpt convincing details and paint convincingly on his models. It is a shame considering his talent. He is a crack Zbrush artist. And does amazing work. And it is pretty good at adding details and painting. But not nearly as good as he could be. Does not mean I will fire him. But he is limited. So I have to rely on another artist to do the painting.

And so you have to realize that 2D is a large part of the process all the way through. And to the degree you improve that skill is to the degree you will improve your 3D skills and lift limitations on what you can do and be less dependent on others to realize your visions.

That I think is the proper qualified answer.

Ma3rk
10-26-2016, 07:15 PM
I create all of my character models from a 6 poly cube. From there its all Bevel and Spin Edges for the most part... that and pushing and pulling points.

Sounds like a good candidate for a time lapse vid unless of course there's already one lurking somewhere.

hrgiger
10-26-2016, 07:22 PM
That I think is the proper qualified answer.

There's no question that developing drawing and spatial understanding will help you in a 3D realm. However....

If you don't have the passion for it and the motivation for it, you won't see a lot of benefit from it. I went to art school after high school and drawing and painting used to be my medium and I used to draw a lot of satisfaction from finishing things and sharing work with others and especially making things for others. I think part of it was I just enjoyed having a certain artistic sense while most others around me were confounded at the thought of just drawing stick figures. However, I don't think my passion really took off until I discovered computer animation. Even though I still draw and paint some with Mischief and Photoshop, it just doesn't hold my interest long enough that I feel like I draw benefit from it. And the more I think I really need to spend time drawing to improve my all around artistic technique, the less I really feel like doing it. However, its rare I ever feel like that in 3D. I honestly can't get enough of it. Most days I rush home to be at the computer, exploring forms in Zbrush or LightWave or Modo and always have 2 or 3 projects I'm working on at once. And its where I've grown most as an artist.

So I would say passion to create outweighs any time spent doing something you think you might need to do in order to get better.

Surrealist.
10-26-2016, 07:44 PM
I disparage. I forced myself to learn human anatomy by drawing. It improved my character designs and my understanding while modeling 1000 percent. It was hard. It was grueling. I never saw myself as a 2D artist and would never be a fool to try and strike out in that direction. A side benefit was I improved my dexterity in sculpting and panting in 2D and 3D. Been drawing my whole life, but I still suck at it compared to concept artists and people who do that for a living. But because I have forced myself to get out of my comfort zone, I benefited. You always do when you do that. There is absolutely no benefit to not pushing yourself into unfamiliar and even uninteresting waters.

I don't have a passion for most of the things I have had to learn in 3D for that matter. A passion for sifting through manuals page by page and laboring over endless technical tests just so I can understand how to use cloth?

I have a passion for learning, yes. But most of the things you learn that are worthwhile take sweat. I can't think of a single thing that does not.

I would go further to say that people that are really good look at all of it this way.

Remember talking to an amazing concept artist that was working for me. I asked him about his school. He said it was horrifying. They worked around the clock and were highly competitive. They spent most of the time sweating and competing against each other. It was not some amazing creative environment. It was work. Hard work and sweat. And he is flipping amazing at it. He did not suffer from that or quit or loose interest. He just simply got better.

Familiar phrase I won't repeat for this.

Most people - the really good ones - do this by instinct.

hrgiger
10-26-2016, 07:53 PM
Well we'll have to agree to disagree here. You learn to use cloth because you have a passion for 3D and your work may call for using cloth. However, that's different from learning drawing to be better at 3D, its two different mediums. Sculpting from reference benefits you more directly than drawing from it because you're actually learning form in all dimensions instead of learning forced perspective on paper which isn't quite the same thing. I would grant you that lighting in drawing does teach you about form but with sculpting, you're learning the whole form at once, not just angles of it. As I said, there is clear benefit to having a 2D background or even continuing on refining ones drawing skills, but ultimately, the more time you spend in your end medium, the better off you'll be.

Surrealist.
10-26-2016, 08:10 PM
You missed the point of cloth entirely. That was just an illustration of something that was hard for me and unnatural. Like most of the things I have had to learn in 3D. They have not come naturally at all. I had to work at it. I would say that I don't have a passion for 3D by itself. I have a passion for telling stories in a unique way. That is my passion. And to do that I have had to learn disciplines I had absolutely no real interest in at all. Mostly because I was not independently wealthy. But also the side benefit is I have designed unique things I would never have been able to conceive of or write, conceptually, or tell another artist how to do. So you can say I am a writer. So if all I did was sit around and type up a bunch of words all day, I would have never learned how to express certain things. in 3D. Or in film for that matter.

And I find this discussion interesting because I open with the statement that this is not absolute and then you are arguing with me as if I said it is absolute. I said it had to be qualified.

But if we are going to go down that absolute path of reasoning. Then you are wrong. The majority of things you will have to be called on to do to finish something in 3D requires 2D skill. Even 3D sculpting. It is not clay. It is a pen and a pad. That is 2D. Same with painting in 3D or 2D.

So if you are a 3D artist and you do not have skills in 2D you are limited. That is a fact.

And another fact is, if you force yourself to learn 2D better, you will improve on all of your 3D skill.

That is the proper qualification to the question, "do you have to learn 2D?."

Of course you don't. But if you want to get better at it, you will.

WilliamVaughan
10-26-2016, 08:17 PM
Yeah William, well here is my ever so subtle nod to Lightwave rendered in Modo with Mesh lights.
134927

Awesome!

hrgiger
10-26-2016, 08:27 PM
Well I had written a bit but its clear we wont' come to a mutual consensus on it so again, we'll just agree to disagree. What I will say is that everyone learns and processes things differently so to suggest that any particular person would just automatically be better at 3D if they just invested more time in 2D is not something you can assert definitively. Sounds good but it just won't be true for everyone.

DrStrik9
10-26-2016, 09:49 PM
It's super-smooth, like clay from heaven.

Surrealist.
10-26-2016, 09:54 PM
Well I had written a bit but its clear we wont' come to a mutual consensus on it so again, we'll just agree to disagree. What I will say is that everyone learns and processes things differently so to suggest that any particular person would just automatically be better at 3D if they just invested more time in 2D is not something you can assert definitively. Sounds good but it just won't be true for everyone.


I am not even remotely interested in coming to a mutual consensus. What gave you that idea? And what would that accomplish anyway?

2D is a skill. This is a fact. It is not just a way to process something. And 3D has in it inextricably, 2D skills. That is a fact. It is not opinion. It is fact. You pick up a pen, than is a 2D skill on a tablet. Fact. The same skill it takes to do that is the same skill it takes to do 2D. Fact. Learning 2D is not "processing something". It is learning a skill. 2D

And learning more about that skill and with practice - no matter how much harder it is for you than the next guy - will mean improving that skill. That is just a fact. It is not my opinion. I did not invent mouse pads, tablets and pens. I am not to blame. Don't kill the messenger.

If you suck at 2D you are going to suck at all of the things in 3D that require 2D skill which is quite a long list. Not to mention that 3D is not even 3D. It is just an illusion. Everything we do sitting at the computer is 2 dimensional. From the input device to the screen. Unless of course you are using some new technology for input. That is another matter.

I don't care if you don't agree with me. I am not saying this to change your mind.

If all you were saying is you don't have any interest in it or think that for you, you have been there and done that, then fine. I think that is all you are really saying anyway. And why would I ever challenge another artists inclinations?

But you want to extrapolate some facts from your inclinations? That is a stretch. That is just your current inclination. That is not a fact.

There are only 5 main facts to consider here.

1) You don't have to learn 2D to become a 3D artist - with the qualifying statements of fact that...
2) If you do learn 2D you will increase certain skills you would not otherwise tap into with only 3D
3) If you don't, you won't
4) If you don't your 3D skill will be limited
5) It is entirely up to you to take advantage of this or not. No one can tell you what to do. But it does not changes these facts.

That is the beginning and end of this subject right there in my opinion.

And these are the things that come to my mind every time an artist asks this question.

jasonwestmas
10-26-2016, 10:18 PM
I'll be the odd man out and just flat out disagree.

I won't go as far as to say that you have to be a master at drawing first. Nor will I say that you can't model if you can't draw. And it would be silly to say this in a way that discourages people from modeling if they can not draw to save their lives. Doesn't take a genius to see that that could be very discouraging to some artists. Including me. :)

But I have read these arguments many times before and they usually go unqualified.

So a better question to ask yourself is, "will I improve my skills as a 3D artist if I hunker down and learn to draw?" And the answer to that is a resounding yes. Assuming that you actually learn some art basics along the way. So I think the flip side of it is you can not just give a blanket unqualified answer. It is slightly short-sighted. It needs to have some qualifications in there.

There are numerous things to consider. One is that most if not all productions start with some kind of a sketch form. It is faster and even more fluid than sculpting. So as a generalist, right there you are limited if you can't draw. You can say I am not a designer. OK. fine. But then you are also saying you are limited to not or designing. It is a limitation. Or you design with sculpting which is also a time limitation by comparison. It is a qualified answer. There is no yes or no.

Another thing to consider. How far are you going to be taking the modeling process? Are you going to be painting textures? 3D or 2D? And it does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to realize that again if you are 2D challenged you are actually limited in the things you can do. Even 3D painting (and sculpting for that matter) are really 2D skills. And if your 2D suffers so will those. Because using a tablet to draw paint or sculpt is the same skill/dexterity as drawing.

My best modeler in my studio is my worst 2D guy. What does that say about him? It says I can not rely on him to sculpt convincing details and paint convincingly on his models. It is a shame considering his talent. He is a crack Zbrush artist. And does amazing work. And it is pretty good at adding details and painting. But not nearly as good as he could be. Does not mean I will fire him. But he is limited. So I have to rely on another artist to do the painting.

And so you have to realize that 2D is a large part of the process all the way through. And to the degree you improve that skill is to the degree you will improve your 3D skills and lift limitations on what you can do and be less dependent on others to realize your visions.

That I think is the proper qualified answer.

Just to add to what you are saying. . .I think true understanding of a structural object is spacial understanding that is stored in memory. As is the understanding of what light does on certain materials without reference. When I was young I could copy a photograph perfectly with a pencil or brush just by eyeballing it but I could never do it from just my memory. I didn't understand anything that I was replicating. I had to take the time to draw or sculpt or add color to something from understanding rather than just what I was seeing. Only then could I invent new things that weren't things just to copy.

I think my point is regardless of the medium, we all need understanding to do anything that isn't just replication of what we see.

I think I wrote this somewhere else before lol.

hrgiger
10-26-2016, 10:32 PM
Words. More words..

Youve disagreed with me, ive disagreed with you. we have in fact agreed that we disagree with each other. But knock yourself out if you need to keep asserting your point.

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 12:14 AM
Sure, why not. As if I needed the invitation... lol

I actually enjoy being challenged on something I have been thinking on for a while. And then the thoughts culminate and solidify and clarify. Many people have said just what you and even William have said in the past. Many times. And I always wondered why exactly it was I just did not agree. How you think about it is your own damn business as far as I am concerned. But if an artist comes here to ask the question I think it should be talked about objectively.

I think if an artist comes to me and asks this, I could never give the answers you have given. It is not the good honest answer. It is more of an appeasing answer. Like, "nah, don't worry about it'. You'll be fine."

And you know what? He will be fine. It is OK to say that as the first response perhaps. Because a guy should not be all worked up about it and worrying. That would be the wrong approach to it.

But there is absolutely more to the subject. It is kind of a half answer. And the points I have argued are the second half. I said that from the beginning.

There is a second half and it is an important thing to consider.

Definitely should not be brushed off.

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 12:37 AM
Just to add to what you are saying. . .I think true understanding of a structural object is spacial understanding that is stored in memory. As is the understanding of what light does on certain materials without reference. When I was young I could copy a photograph perfectly with a pencil or brush just by eyeballing it but I could never do it from just my memory. I didn't understand anything that I was replicating. I had to take the time to draw or sculpt or add color to something from understanding rather than just what I was seeing. Only then could I invent new things that weren't things just to copy.

I think my point is regardless of the medium, we all need understanding to do anything that isn't just replication of what we see.

I think I wrote this somewhere else before lol.

You may have, but I think I don't remember.

But continuing on this line of thinking. Something that Ed Catmull said about art. He said it is about learning to look. And I have found that this is such a key thing. And the thing that most artists have trouble with. I have stood over the shoulder of many an artist and pointed to the photo and then to their model and said, look. Can you see how this is another shape than what you are making?

The ability to assimilate shapes and space and transfer that to a medium of any kind is a skill that has to be learned. And it takes a lot of practice. And this is not limited to or something that can only be learned in 2D obviously.

But as I think of that. Here is another aspect of it. Seems to me though that I almost never see traditional techniques taught in 3D. Meaning that it is interesting that these skills that are taught there, in 2D are not making it to the 3D world. I am sure it is not true in all cases. But I would say broadly probably so. So this is another fall out of negating 2D. Because this is the world where all of this stuff has been developed over centuries of art and art teaching. And we are going to come along and say, well it really does not translate or is not important?

And it would be all well and good, if 3D courses were structured in the same way as 2D courses are. But they are not. At least from what I have seen. In the uni obviously the artists are expected to get that in the traditional drawing class.

And so this is another way some very fundamental foundations of skills can get lost, by simply negating 2D as not necessary. I beg to differ. I think it is fundamental to the entire thing from start to finish and negating it in an off hand way is not a good idea.

DCjr
10-27-2016, 01:19 AM
Great work William! Nice to see you at the Lightwave forum again.

jeric_synergy
10-27-2016, 01:41 AM
Richard: I saw some outstanding artist using Zbrush (probably) to sculpt a head, and he started w/the skeleton, added the musculature, before getting to the skin.

IIRC, this is a very classical way of 2d drawing-- even though subsequent work obliterates the early stuff, the early stuff informs the later work. And the result was outstanding.

Is that kinda where you're going w/this?

+++++++++

This discussion reminds me of social dancing: I like to waltz, and some of my partners are not of the highest skill level. I've found when they take tango classes, they become much better waltzers, even if they never get very good at tango.

Tango teaches you to sense what your partner is doing. You may not learn to tango well, but you certainly learn to pay attention to your partner, and that is crucial in all social dance.

Similarly, while most 3d practitioners will most likely never be good at drawing, drawing will teach them how to LOOK, and how to SEE. Seeing, to me, is the premiere skill in the artist's toolkit.

Rayek
10-27-2016, 02:01 AM
When I was younger, I always thought reasonable 2d drawing skills weren't that important to become a good 3d artist. I still think that good (even excellent) 3d work can be done (and is done) by artists who lack the ability to put their ideas on a 2d canvas.

These days I have become more nuanced, and I am convinced that, in order to grow as a 3d artist, 2d drawing skills are the easiest and simplest method to improve one's "seeing". An artist with good drawing skills generally imbues his/her work with an edge that is harder to achieve without those skills. I do find that learning 3d has improved my drawing skills, and vice versa.

Good 2d construction skills lead to better 3d construction skills. On the other hand, I have seen students study anatomy through their 3d work only, and this understanding lead them to construct character work that broke through to the next level(s) of 3d finesse.

I do completely agree with Richard that understanding of the 2d canvas may dramatically improve 3d work (which is ultimately a 2d canvas as well). Although it is not the only way to improve it - I feel it depends on the individual artist as well. Some respond exceedingly well with 2d drawing, while I have seen others grow as artists without much 2d skills at all. And some of those had brilliant sculpting skills (in physical clay :-). I know of one or two students in my classes who learned to "see" through their photography and cinematography work (no drafting skills to speak of).

I suppose the key is the capability to "look" - which is most often, but not always, acquired with good 2d drawing skills. But there are always exceptions, and there always will be. Not everyone learns the same way - which makes things so interesting!

prometheus
10-27-2016, 05:11 AM
If I was a noob I'd think you were pulling my leg. Of course, I know you could do this.

++++++
For people who "can't" sketch, there's always Sculpy or Play-Doh. Seriously.

Plasteline/plastecine is probably better, before going with sculpy.(cheaper too).play doh one can always go back to once your in the elder care, thoug play doh is different in consistence..and dries out after a while,, and not as good as plasteline and sculpy
Plasteline is nice and easy to form, if you want it to be solid later, learn how to work with that and plaster.
sculpting with real clay would probably be my number one favourite occupation before 3d graphics, if you could make a living with it.

Even a blind person can sculpt stuff with clay, just by feeling the shape.

Plastecine and plaster set work..
To bad the amazing set of the spacejockey was burnt down by accident, I would have liked to see that in real life, maybe I should build one myself if I find some space somewhere :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-riGgdO68FRk/UwD_v2DdbHI/AAAAAAAAGTc/CqhDlOz8W70/s1600/IMG_3619.PNG

jasonwestmas
10-27-2016, 09:38 AM
You may have, but I think I don't remember.

But continuing on this line of thinking. Something that Ed Catmull said about art. He said it is about learning to look. And I have found that this is such a key thing. And the thing that most artists have trouble with. I have stood over the shoulder of many an artist and pointed to the photo and then to their model and said, look. Can you see how this is another shape than what you are making?

The ability to assimilate shapes and space and transfer that to a medium of any kind is a skill that has to be learned. And it takes a lot of practice. And this is not limited to or something that can only be learned in 2D obviously.

But as I think of that. Here is another aspect of it. Seems to me though that I almost never see traditional techniques taught in 3D. Meaning that it is interesting that these skills that are taught there, in 2D are not making it to the 3D world. I am sure it is not true in all cases. But I would say broadly probably so. So this is another fall out of negating 2D. Because this is the world where all of this stuff has been developed over centuries of art and art teaching. And we are going to come along and say, well it really does not translate or is not important?

And it would be all well and good, if 3D courses were structured in the same way as 2D courses are. But they are not. At least from what I have seen. In the uni obviously the artists are expected to get that in the traditional drawing class.

And so this is another way some very fundamental foundations of skills can get lost, by simply negating 2D as not necessary. I beg to differ. I think it is fundamental to the entire thing from start to finish and negating it in an off hand way is not a good idea.

Perhaps I'm not clear on the context for which you are speaking but I think I know what you mean by 2D skills. I took on a job that required a lot of unity/ afterFX motion graphics and graphic design in general regarding popups, logos, Button UI as well as particle effects and 3D character animation all working together in the same 2D camera space. I definitely noticed that 2D composition was not my forte and I have since learned a lot about that. I could do it but I know that I have improved a lot in that regard in a per pixel type of examination. Just a few pixels in 2D space makes a huge difference when creating clearly readable video game projects.

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 09:49 AM
Richard: I saw some outstanding artist using Zbrush (probably) to sculpt a head, and he started w/the skeleton, added the musculature, before getting to the skin.

IIRC, this is a very classical way of 2d drawing-- even though subsequent work obliterates the early stuff, the early stuff informs the later work. And the result was outstanding.

Is that kinda where you're going w/this?

+++++++++

This discussion reminds me of social dancing: I like to waltz, and some of my partners are not of the highest skill level. I've found when they take tango classes, they become much better waltzers, even if they never get very good at tango.

Tango teaches you to sense what your partner is doing. You may not learn to tango well, but you certainly learn to pay attention to your partner, and that is crucial in all social dance.

Similarly, while most 3d practitioners will most likely never be good at drawing, drawing will teach them how to LOOK, and how to SEE. Seeing, to me, is the premiere skill in the artist's toolkit.

Yes in both cases that is the general idea.

Actually this is nothing new. It is centuries old. Over time good information gets obscured. Some times information is improved, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes we think we are "smarter now" when in fact we have simply stopped using common sense. In the old classic schools even doctors learned art and other humanities along with science. It was widely accepted that the more well-rounded a person is educated the better person he is. Then over time we started to specialize. When we specialize we loose a broader scope.

If all you learn is how to make bombs but you never learn diplomacy.... well off topic, we can't go there. But you get my point.

However all of this said. Here is my main point that I come to rest on. And that is that we can debate all we want about how important it is to be well rounded as an artist. Or how 2D education will affect your 3D.

But there is one thing that is not up for debate. 3D is not 3D. It is actually 2D with the illusion of 3D.

All of our input devices - or I should say the current most used - are 2D devices. A mouse and a tablet are both 2 dimensional input devices. The best artists - if they can afford it - use a tablet screen so that the monitor is actually the canvas. And so there you are definitely 2D. It is usually the preferred way if you are a 2D digital artist but some 3D artists find it attractive as well.

So the history and the tech of this all come from 2D.

So, then to say that 2D is optional? How can that possibly be? It is essential.

And that is not even counting the fact that probably 80 percent of 3D work is actually 2D work. (painting, 3D sculpting, weight painting texturing, UV mapping are all 2D input skills on the illusion of 3D or directly in 2D in a paint program or UV map) Then you add to that, the fact that it all comes together in 2D on a flat screen. (aside from the current 3D trend). It is in fact a 2 D medium from input to final image.

So 2D is optional?

Hardly. The skill you have in 2D would directly be applied on a daily basis for 80 percent of your work including and especially with "3D" sculpting.

jasonwestmas
10-27-2016, 09:56 AM
well 3D isn't an illusion, it's real ( err, real 3D data that exists as a structural concept), only our perception of it is 2D. But our understanding can be 3D and 2D depending how we are looking at it. :) Studying how to get a good 2D silhouette and how that shape relates to X number of other shapes is indeed important.
I can honestly say that studying 3D objects has improved my 2D skills too.

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 10:31 AM
Yes. Sculpting or building things in the real world is 3D. Working in the computer is 2D, sickly and only, from input to output with some virtual 3D math and feedback in the middle. You move a mouse in 2 dimensions. You draw in 2 dimensions on a tablet with a pen. traditional 2D methods of input. A 2D output.

That I am saying as completely aside from the other points of discussion about broadening your skills and how those will relate back and forth.

Here on this point I am saying there is a direct and completely unavoidable context of 2D skill. And most of it is exactly 2D not even 3D. We only actually model for a very short span of the production cycle. Most of the rest of it requires a 2D skill. Literally. not figuratively or even in concept.

This is just another way I think the argument is absurd.

jasonwestmas
10-27-2016, 10:42 AM
Yes. Sculpting or building things in the real world is 3D. Working in the computer is 2D, sickly and only, from input to output with some virtual 3D math and feedback in the middle. You move a mouse in 2 dimensions. You draw in 2 dimensions on a tablet with a pen. traditional 2D methods of input. A 2D output.

That I am saying as completely aside from the other points of discussion about broadening your skills and how those will relate back and forth.

Here on this point I am saying there is a direct and completely unavoidable context of 2D skill. And most of it is exactly 2D not even 3D. We only actually model for a very short span of the production cycle. Most of the rest of it requires a 2D skill. Literally. not figuratively or even in concept.

This is just another way I think the argument is absurd.

It's not absurd at all. I'm speaking in terms of fact from my own experience in my mind. When we understand things in 3D from looking at objects from different perspectives and create them from those multitude of perpectives we build more understanding and the 2D counterpart becomes a reflection of that. They are connected no matter what.

Spinland
10-27-2016, 11:00 AM
Interesting how some threads gang aft agley.

Passionate, creative people respond passionately to issues relate to their art. I don't know that you could be one without doing the other; might be wrong, but still awaiting counterexamples. I know I get my knickers in a twist more often than I care to admit, sometimes over the silliest things. You've seen this. ;D

Thing is, so much of what we feel so passionately can be anecdotal; even when we can point to a greater body of evidence. In this, our craft, I think it's so easy quickly to make it personal. Generalizations can be so bland when compared to the fire that burns within, Just my own observations, of course, but there it is.

Okay, that's my blathering out of the way; on to the topic: very cool character design, William! I had to chuckle a little at the comment on the production itself. I know, right?

My own, totally unscientific anecdote which applies to absolutely no one else but to me: I draw. I have drawn all my life (well, since I could hold an implement) and my associated vision completely drives my visualization skills as transferred to things 3D. Again, that is only my personal bias and I am unqualified to declare that someone who cannot recreate one of those silly sketches in the back of comic books could not become a kick *** 3D artist. I cannot imagine how that process would progress, because I do not have said experience, but I cannot deny its validity.

That's as far as I can reliably go on that topic. See what I did there? ;)

Love you guys, :beerchug:

pnelson
10-27-2016, 11:12 AM
Proton strikes again!

Spinland
10-27-2016, 11:23 AM
Proton strikes again!

134929

It's an N-Strike Vortex Proton. Get it? Huh? Get it? ;D

jasonwestmas
10-27-2016, 11:36 AM
Hi Spinland. Understanding a 3D structure or 2D composition is purely cognitive and observational. There are no images that communicate the process of fully understanding 3D structures and 2D compositions, it's just something we do or do not do. So success in regards to creating something interesting or accurately is based upon an ongoing process to build a visual shape library within our memories. The shape library of 3D objects change depending on which perspective from which we are observing that object from. There are a multitude of such libraries for a single object depending on the complexities of the form. When we build a library (from sheer will and observation) of those shapes we are in fact recording different perspectives of the same subject within our memories. That is my interpretation of what truly understanding a 2D image is. An accurate recording. No doubt using pencils, brushes, clay and polygons on a regular basis help us to retain such memories inside of our imaginations. But the medium is not the foundation of such observational skills. Do or do not do. There is no try. ;)

Spinland
10-27-2016, 11:48 AM
I hear you, Jason, and your words resonate strongly with me; I just don't put myself in the position of being qualified to assert they are generally true. That isn't a weakness of your words, rather one of my broader knowledge.

Part of my growing up in "traditional" art was drawing figures from various angles because I wanted to "see" how they looked from those angles. I also had a passion for designing aircraft and space ships and created piles of 3-view sketches of my visions. That such an upbringing heavily influenced my current career is, to me, a no-brainer. No arguments from me on that score!

jasonwestmas
10-27-2016, 12:09 PM
I hear you, Jason, and your words resonate strongly with me; I just don't put myself in the position of being qualified to assert they are generally true. That isn't a weakness of your words, rather one of my broader knowledge.

Part of my growing up in "traditional" art was drawing figures from various angles because I wanted to "see" how they looked from those angles. I also had a passion for designing aircraft and space ships and created piles of 3-view sketches of my visions. That such an upbringing heavily influenced my current career is, to me, a no-brainer. No arguments from me on that score!

I think you are qualified to discuss such things;)

What you say reminds me that just because we can't see some part of a 3D thing doesn't mean it isn't there and in fact the hidden brings adhesive and contextual meaning to the unhidden parts. IOW the position of a shape is dictated by support elements that my or may not be in view at any given time. This is especially true in video and animation. In many cases understanding this can help us to build more convincing 2D art.

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 12:14 PM
It's not absurd at all. I'm speaking in terms of fact from my own experience in my mind. When we understand things in 3D from looking at objects from different perspectives and create them from those multitude of perpectives we build more understanding and the 2D counterpart becomes a reflection of that. They are connected no matter what.

I was not commenting on that specifically as being absurd. At all. I agree with you there completely.

To be concise, this is what I find absurd. And it has been asked and answered more than once.

Q: I suck at 2D. Do I have to be good and drawing and 2D in general to be a good 3D Artist?
A: Not at all chum, don't you worry. They are not related. Some of the best 3D artists I know suck at 2D...

That is absurd. Not to make that point. But to make only that point and then walk away.

It needs very heavy qualification.

And then when you examine it, you realize that not only does it require qualification, most of what we do in 3D is actually 2D. From start to finish.

That is why I think that "specialist" POV is absurd. It discounts too many obvious and inextricable connections.

Spinland
10-27-2016, 12:59 PM
Q: I suck at 2D. Do I have to be good and drawing and 2D in general to be a good 3D Artist?
A: Not at all chum, don't you worry. They are not related. Some of the best 3D artists I know suck at 2D...


At first blush I'd call straw man on that example...but then again I've been on these boards for no few years so I've seen what you mean. Yeah, in that context (qualified, of course), I see the point you're making. I agree.

Maybe it would be helpful, since the question is a general one, to divorce the discussion from a specific that may be overly limiting, such as "2D drawing." What are the actual skills that contribute to visualizing an object and realizing it in a 3D modeling app? They would, I think it easy to assert, parallel the ones that enable a sketch artist to put vision on paper—but is it the paper-and-pencil craft that's necessary, or the underlying visualization skills that both have in common?

Interesting thing to ponder, to me.

prometheus
10-27-2016, 01:35 PM
Unless exactly depicting a given shape and form Exactly as it is, it may help to exaggerate certain parts and elements, to simply give you shape Mass and a sense of impact, large noses, eyebrow, lips than normal, principles that work well in sculpting and translates well over to 3d I would say, at least for certain characters, creatures etc.

A simple ordinary face with strict proportions and too symmetrical attributes, is often simply boring, no wonder Da vinci fancied to draw grotesque faces, if there wasn´t any other hidden agenda behind that?

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 02:08 PM
At first blush I'd call straw man on that example...but then again I've been on these boards for no few years so I've seen what you mean. Yeah, in that context (qualified, of course), I see the point you're making. I agree.

Maybe it would be helpful, since the question is a general one, to divorce the discussion from a specific that may be overly limiting, such as "2D drawing." What are the actual skills that contribute to visualizing an object and realizing it in a 3D modeling app? They would, I think it easy to assert, parallel the ones that enable a sketch artist to put vision on paper—but is it the paper-and-pencil craft that's necessary, or the underlying visualization skills that both have in common?

Interesting thing to ponder, to me.

Indeed. But the question is an honest one. And it has been asked on every forum I have been a part of in one form or another over as many years as I have been around. It is the basic question. And it is borne out of a sort of insecurity. A feeling that one can not actually advance in the field. And I say it is instinctive. But it also begs for some kind of release from the problem. It is a problem. A person is feeling bad about it, it builds up and then he gets the idea to ask the question. Almost as if he wants the answer to let him off the hook but he is afraid it won't. So it is saying, "come on guys convince me I am wrong and I don't really have to learn 2D". And then the debates rage on. And people forget that some guy actually asked the question to solve his problem. Maybe in the back of his mind he is thinking the answer will be simple. But the answer is never simple. It is fairly complex and it has to be tailored to the individual.

A recent thread on this on the Blender Artists forums after all of the responses the artist said this:



I've decided to improve my 3D skills. It feel more mechanical, more in touch with my personality. This means I'll study the basics of art in 3D. I'll also look into photography for studying art basics, because it offers instant results and you can improve easily by deciding on a new angle. I'll still try to improve my drawings, but not to the point of depletion. I'll try to draw at least 30 minutes each day, until I feel more comfortable with actually holding a pen on paper. However, I won't go in-depth about shading and rendering, and 2D specific techniques.

I'd say that is a fairly balanced and sane solution to the problem. He decides to tackle the problem in his own way and took into account all that was said. And he puts learning 2D in the proper perspective within his own situation.

He never would have been able to look at it all objectively and made a decision if the only answer was... "nah dude, it doesn't matter". With no qualification with no broader view of the entire situation and the consequences.

Spinland
10-27-2016, 03:02 PM
Yes. Thus far I'm seeing nothing that trips any red flags for me, save in the arena of context and taxonomy. So often I see people arguing past each other who, as I see it, are really in agreement save for the terms they're adhering to. Methinks the "it doesn't matter" approach is not necessarily what they meant, any more than is the assertion that unless you can create credible character sketches with paper and pencil you'll never grok 3D. I've gone back and read your posts, Surrealist, and methinks you can agree: context is so important in such advice. "It doesn't matter" might actually be valid advice if amplified with pointers to the parts that actually do matter.

See, in so many things I'm an irritating pedant about language. Comes from years as a professional linguist in the military where context could literally change (as in, cost or save) lives when people with stars on their shoulders were making decisions based on my translations. I'm totally on board with talking about where the spark and the vision come from in our art and craft but I might seem to want push the narrative into more basic context than the current one. Doesn't mean I'm arguing with you, just that I honestly want to make an informed and useful impact on the discussion but I see things a certain way. :)

jeric_synergy
10-27-2016, 05:41 PM
Ugh. I'd unsubscribe, but I'd like to see if William has anything more to say about his character model.

Chris S. (Fez)
10-27-2016, 05:43 PM
Great models, William!

hrgiger
10-27-2016, 07:14 PM
Ugh. I'd unsubscribe, but I'd like to see if William has anything more to say about his character model.

You can see his other characters here for the Trolland movie here Eric.

http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=8&t=126958

Surrealist.
10-27-2016, 07:35 PM
I think these discussions are important. I think the conclusions are important. I think education of artists is important. I think what you say and how you say it and what you mean is important. And especially the things you leave out.

I know that people ask questions because they want answers. And I know that the people "arguing" about it is not the end game. That ain't what it is about. This is not some pleasant discussion at the social club over what cookies to bake at the next tea party.

This is a serious discussion about art. Teaching and learning art.

And I take these subjects seriously. I think about them. I consider the consequences of an artist reading these discussions. I think about the changes in my point of view and how that affects me. How it helps me to clarify what I know. And how that will in turn have practical application when I teach other artists.

I don't think about the consequences of how another person who chooses to challenge me is offended within this thread. Because that is not the end game. The end game is the artist who comes here for an answer. Asked here. Answered here.

If someone answers in a way I think it horrible short-sighted advice I say so and why and I don't hold anything back.

And I don't give a hoot if that is offensive. If someone takes that and makes it personal that is their doing not mine.

Anyone reading this and taking mindless argument out of it is missing the point entirely. Trying to keep score and say people are just agreeing on different terms is not any better of an assessment.

Just like anything that actually matters in life people will have varying degrees of understanding and agreement. Welcome to planet Earth.

These discussions actually can make a difference as I have proven in that quote above. It does matter what you say and how you say it.

There are discussions that don't matter at all. And around here, those discussions go on for pages and days and days of dribble that won't change anything about things that people can not even control. Thinking apparently that if they keep at it long enough it will change something. It never does. LW 3D group goes on and does what they do. End of story.

It is insanity frankly. And are in fact nothing more than petty arguments between people that won't change the outcome of anything.

This is not one of those discussions. This does change the outcome of things. This can have an effect on people and will have an effect on people in a positive way. Reading well thought out arguments on both sides is valid. It is helpful to an artist to see points argued. Even if the points are polarized.

Can't get my head around why someone would categorize this as nothing more than a few people not able to agree.

Just completely looses me.

WilliamVaughan
10-27-2016, 08:20 PM
Great models, William!

Much appreciated.

hrgiger
10-27-2016, 08:20 PM
Just can't let it go can you Richard? Sorry but I don't agree with all of your points.

I've already said that I believe 2D is beneficial even to 3D artists. It has benefitted myself as its my background. However, everyone is unique and not everyone learns the same or benefits the same from a given learning experience. Sorry if you think that is short sighted in any way, but like you I don't give a hoot.

The original question was hey, I can't draw a lick but can I still do characters in 3D. And of course even as you said the answer is yes. The conversation on that point should have ended right there. Because you've completely hijacked this thread on a high horse when the thread was William sharing his art which had given a nod to the LightWave logo.

Surrealist.
10-28-2016, 12:20 AM
Well that would be one thing if that is what happened. But it is not what happened at all. And what difference does it make what thread this took place in? The question came up. Nothing happening on these boards but a bunch of dribble about LW 3D Group. A little art discussion for some levity. Why not? Who cares where at this point? I don't ... apparently... lol

For me, professionally speaking though, to be right in your conviction you'd have to back it with some scientific fact. And you don't have any. At lest not from what you have shared. But set me straight.

And you do see that this is a practical discussion with consequences right? I mean it is kind of technical really. And it is not just you and me disagreeing on a movie plot. Right? Do you see this?

Do you see that what you say makes a difference? That advising someone would also come with some responsibility? Is that clear?

With that in mind, what is the gist of your argument? That some people will never get anything out of 2D training? You seem set on the fact that some people never will because they process things differently. So, where is the clinical trial on that? What are you basing it on?

I have heard of this language before. And I would guess this is part of some new educational theory or something like that. Based on more general trials of some kind. It is a buzz word sounding kind of thing. "People process things differently". Sounds familiar from many circles.

But where exactly is the clinical trial on teaching people 3D?

In your own personal experience and mine, we agree it helps. So there is that.

But where is the idea coming from that some people will not? Why would you have that conviction with no facts to back it up? And if I am wrong. Where is the trial?

I would call on better than 6 centuries of art education and decades of art schooling in modern technology that beg to differ. I would say if there is a trial to support my position. It is right there. This is how art and 3D is taught currently.

I would call on my own experience and also the artists I work with personally. Also I would add the facts of what we are actually doing in 3D that I laid out in my argument. Very well thought out and laid out points.

And to all of that all you can say is you just disagree and that people process things differently?

Is that it?

I am sorry if I just don't see your point in trying to hold to that. What does it accomplish?

Or if I am wrong in my assessment of what you are saying, correct me. But that is exactly how I read it.

hrgiger
10-28-2016, 01:29 AM
Again, and I can't believe I'm humoring you in continuing this pointless discussion but the question was can a person make character models if they suck at drawing. And the answer is yes. Without question. Its already been pointed out numerous times that there are a lot of amazing 3D artists who can't draw to save their life. Does that mean a person wouldn't benefit from spending time drawing. No, but that's a whole other discussion and I'm not even arguing that point. Is it necessary to spend time drawing if you're going to be working in 3D. Not at all.

When I work, if I put anything down on paper first, its just general forms, nothing most people wouldn't be able to do themselves. I could refine it quite a bit because I do have drawing ability but its really pointless as I prefer refining in 3D, especially in an environment like Zbrush which is completely conducive to exploring form in a non-destructive manner. And to be honest, I just don't enjoy drawing these days as much as I enjoy working in 3D. Do you learn more when you're actually interested or inspired in a subject or just when you feel like you need to learn something because its 'good for you'. I know for me, the answer is certainly the former. My time is better spent working in my end medium, and in something that actually inspires me to learn.

Both on where is my scientific data or why I'm trying to hold to a position I guess I was thinking the same on your end. Where are your cases studies showing 3D artists works before and after they spent time away studying only 2D and showed marked improvement when they finally returned to 3D? You're calling on 6 centuries of art education like that backs up your position on 3D artists? I didn't realize Leonardo Da Vinci was a LightWave user. Cool. And youre calling on your own experience all the while completely disregarding mine. Sure that seems legit.

But again, this thread was not about this at all so I'm out.

mav3rick
10-28-2016, 03:08 AM
welcome back proton :) now that you are back.. stay with us :)

Surrealist.
10-28-2016, 07:08 AM
And youre calling on your own experience all the while completely disregarding mine. Sure that seems legit.

Fair enough. I did not mean to do that specifically. It did not seem to me that the experience you had - at least not the ones you shared anyway - were a back up for the one statement you made that I took issue with. But you obviously feel that way. So fair enough. That is wrong of me then. And I apologize for that. I don't make it a habit of second guessing other people's preferences or inclinations or anything like that. I was not intending to negate that.

I appropriate your taking the time to explain some things about how you work and your preferences.

I don't think it is pointless.

But I think I have already covered all of the points I care to.

hrgiger
10-28-2016, 07:52 AM
Appreciate the sentiment Richard.

jasonwestmas
10-28-2016, 08:24 AM
Well that would be one thing if that is what happened. But it is not what happened at all. And what difference does it make what thread this took place in? The question came up. Nothing happening on these boards but a bunch of dribble about LW 3D Group. A little art discussion for some levity. Why not? Who cares where at this point? I don't ... apparently... lol



Nobody likes to talk about interesting things apparently. Too much thinking. lol, anyway despite us hijacking the thread I found the "discussion" solidifying.

WilliamVaughan
10-28-2016, 08:29 AM
Soooooooo.... when I posted "The staff kinda took on a life of its own".. I meant it kinda looks likethe LightWave Logo:ohmy:

jasonwestmas
10-28-2016, 08:43 AM
hahaha, yes it does William, yes it does. :D

Spinland
10-28-2016, 09:36 AM
Soooooooo.... when I posted "The staff kinda took on a life of its own".. I meant it kinda looks likethe LightWave Logo:ohmy:

http://spinlandhosting.com/smileys/snicker.gif

Surrealist.
10-28-2016, 03:39 PM
Appreciate the sentiment Richard.

No problem Steve. It was sincere.


Nobody likes to talk about interesting things apparently. Too much thinking. lol, anyway despite us hijacking the thread I found the "discussion" solidifying.

Yeah me too. I always come out of it knowing/understanding more than I went in.

What is this about a LightWave logo? Did I miss that? :D