Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Nighthawks

  1. #1
    2D is so Flat! oobievision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boca Raton, Florida, USA
    Posts
    677

    Nighthawks

    Just a little something I been playing with this past week. Ive been trying to get it as close to the original painting as I can but still keeping it as realistic as my skill will allow. Please if u have any suggestions id be glad to hear it.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hopper.nighthawks.jpg 
Views:	251 
Size:	119.2 KB 
ID:	68025   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nighthawks HD render.jpg 
Views:	238 
Size:	207.1 KB 
ID:	68026  
    Oobievision

  2. #2
    Looks great. If you're trying to duplicate the painting exactly I'd use a MUCH longer lens, though...to my eye, there's really no "two-point" perspective in the original Hopper painting.

  3. #3
    Fórum áss clówn Hopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    3,393
    Hmm?.. wha? .. huh? Someone say Hopper?
    Playing guitar is an endless process of running out of fingers.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    2,346
    The first one is clearly photoshop'd. The shadows are all wrong.

  5. #5
    2D is so Flat! oobievision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boca Raton, Florida, USA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilton View Post
    The first one is clearly photoshop'd. The shadows are all wrong.
    the first one is the actual painting
    Oobievision

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilton View Post
    The first one is clearly photoshop'd. The shadows are all wrong.
    It not only is a painting but it also was painted at a time where photoshop didn't even existed. 1942!

    There is nothing wrong with the shadows in the painting. It has two light sources one is the lights in the dinner and the other is the sunlight peeking true the buildings.

    ///
    Last edited by G M D THREE; 01-10-2009 at 11:35 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by oobievision View Post
    Just a little something I been playing with this past week. Ive been trying to get it as close to the original painting as I can but still keeping it as realistic as my skill will allow. Please if u have any suggestions id be glad to hear it.
    Try loading the image as a backdrop and set the camera to the proportion of the image. Set model to wireframe and move and tweak the camera to fit by adjusting poison, rotation and lens of it.

    You probably need to adjust your model, as don't have the same proportions like the architecture in the painting. Take a look at the building in the back. Proportions and ratio of windows and doors are way off.

    Good luck with it, and please keep us posted on the progress of it. ///

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilton View Post
    The first one is clearly photoshop'd. The shadows are all wrong.
    now that's funny!

    maybe lightwave render's will eventually be allowed in galleries to show the ham fisted 'classic painter's' what they're doing wrong all these years!

    could just imagine the section> how to do art correctly with lightwave

    stee+cat
    real name: steve gilbert
    http://www.cresshead.com/

    Q - How many polys?
    A - All of them!

  9. #9
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    S
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by cresshead View Post
    now that's funny!

    maybe lightwave render's will eventually be allowed in galleries to show the ham fisted 'classic painter's' what they're doing wrong all these years!

    could just imagine the section> how to do art correctly with lightwave

    Along the same lines ( where Hopper was coming from) look at Balthus (Balthazaar Klowsowski) and "la Rue" v2.


    Attachment 68049

    Notice how the "perspective" is such that the back of the woman's red hat is pressed flat into the background plane and the very jolly little man to her left is also only separated by a 2 dimensional contour which also adds no perspectival depth.

    If you know your art history, the story of the diagonal line should be familiar. Interesting in as much with linear "perspective" diagonal lines are used to pull the eye into a focal point, and where they don't, you get "non linear" definitions of space like in Piet Mondrian, Kandinsky etc.

    So, Hopper wasn't doing anything wrong.

    m
    Last edited by meshpig; 02-19-2009 at 03:20 AM.

  10. #10
    Yeah. Edward Hopper actually tried working from photos at one point and found he didn't like the results—the subtle (or not-subtle) "cheating" of the laws of light and perspective is part of what makes a good painting work.

    It's one thing I've always found frustrating about 3D—it's really hard to create interest and drama in a picture when you're limited to what's mathematically correct.

  11. #11
    2D is so Flat! oobievision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boca Raton, Florida, USA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by G M D THREE View Post
    Try loading the image as a backdrop and set the camera to the proportion of the image. Set model to wireframe and move and tweak the camera to fit by adjusting poison, rotation and lens of it.

    You probably need to adjust your model, as don't have the same proportions like the architecture in the painting. Take a look at the building in the back. Proportions and ratio of windows and doors are way off.

    Good luck with it, and please keep us posted on the progress of it. ///
    ill do that, I just kinda sorta eyeballed it late at night. ive been doing 3D for a little while and still learning. so I figured I go with the concept of converting 2D art to 3D.
    Oobievision

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •