[Sumaleth]

..at least it's not if you're this guy;
http://www.suteki.nu/oekaki/viewani.php?xcord=450&ycord=450&picno=106

Fascinating little animation. Such sureness. I have no idea who did it unfortunatley.

Row.

[ceenda]

Wow!

Interesting way to work. Doesn't start with a sketch or block in details. Just... draws.

Cool!

[Strawberrysauce]

ARG! pretty amazing,

[razzak]

holy $h!t, a must see for everyone. youll like this. not exactly a little animation but still. love it alot

...... (drags into favourites)

[balistic]

I find it hard to believe he's not tracing something. Not because its a particularly good painting, but because of the way he works . . . to completely finish one eye before even placing the other one . . . its very difficult to work like that and maintain proper proportion across an entire piece. So either he's tracing, or he got lucky.

Might be the old "photo-under-the-wacom-surface" trick.

[strata]

that is... WOW... impressive!!!!

he must have an amazingly clear vision in his head of what he wants it to look like...

or as ballistic said he's tracing... looks like he's using painter... wonder what tools..

[Lunatique]

That is a really bad way to work. Looks to me more like it was made for the sake of showing off instead of demonstrating proper working technique.

BTW, for the younger artists that have never done something similar to the animation--you can't really work like that and get good results. It's a copy of a photo, and this person didn't show you the short cut he used(as balistic mentioned).

[Gort]

In all due respects Lunatique, some people may use the medium differently than others. I am not stating that you're right or that you're wrong but rather that some folks might take a different approach.

I would say that the animated technique doesn't appear conventional.

[Lunatique]

Unconventional, yes, but also a dangerous example for young artists that don't have their foundations down. I doubt any of the seasoned artists will disagree.

It is VERY important for the young, inexperienced artists to learn to sketch out their layouts and check their proportions/composition before comitting to detail. Using the method from the animation without knowing the foundations will only create bad habits for inexperienced artists. (I have my own set of bad habits. )

[eyewoo]

I agree that was a very interesting bit of animation... but I'm pretty sure it was done using a tracing technique and therefore would have been a lot more instructive if the orignal image were somehow included. I enjoyed it and actually learned a technique that I've never used... laying in a hard edged line (e.g. the cloth highlights) and then blurring it.

I'd be interested in learning what software was used to capture and play the animation... Anyone know?

[Merekat]

Phil, I think that was using Painter. I seem to remember a function allowing animated saving of steps. I think you can even save your tool pallets in the process too.

Personally I loved the animation. In fact, I would love to find out the artist eventually.

[MadSamoan]

He could just be relating shapes well. Several instructors of mine draw like that, although they certainly don't instruct that way.

[mythwarden]

I use a similar method to paint as this guy. I project an image from my mind onto the surface, than block in the shapes. Then work the detail up from there. I�m lucky to a have near photographic memory and vision. I see the final picture clearly then work my way up to its completion.

Likely this person has the same type of memory and work style if he hadn't used reference or traced.

I found this animation to be highly useful for artists. Not by the accuracy of his original blocking, but rather the way he went about creating the painting.

I'd love to see more from people. ;-)

-myth

[mythwarden]

Doh! I should have read some of the posts first.

Some people thought that he didn't block it in. He did, he just didn't have to alter the original blocking all that much.

Lunatique is correct. Don't think this is the way to paint. There are tons of ways to construct an image. Some people see the image as is from the start and translate it well, while others sketch it out a bit till they find what looks right to them.

Both ways work great...its the final image that counts, not the path you used to get there. ;-)

-myth

[MadSamoan]

The reasons I think he didn't trace this image are

-the way he blocked in the head in the beginning. He didn't just trace the contour of the head. He created a large abstract shape first and then whittled it down afterwards

-he painted through the drawing on some occasions, most notably before he painted the fingers near the cheek

-he knows his colors and used a limited palette. I think if he's that good with a limited palette, he's probably got the draftmanship skills to draw like that

-I've seen people draw like that in person at demonstrations(although not with color) and that's pretty much the method you have to use to get likenesses and a likeness can be nailed in 20 minutes just relating shapes like that.

[edible snowman]

do you think he looked at a reference while painting this?

[Presto Change O]

I think the girl he painted looks VERY similar to the chick from "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon". Might give a little insight into how it was done should i be right

[GPoodle]

It took him eight hours to do....

[jr]

luna, back when i use to draw people in the park, we'd see alot of classically trained chinese and russian artists draw like this, like a one eye at a time thing. it's impressive, but most of the time their results arn't as good as the traditional way of working it out. i can believe someone did this in 8 hours. it doesn't look that impossible.
the girl's name is zhang ziyi. and this is the reference.




[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: jr ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

There's no doubt in my mind that this is from a photo, and, also obviously traced, I won't go into all the reasons why I say that. Suffice to say, nobody paints like this from pure imagination. Yes I know guys like Adam Hughes and Frank Frazetta can do impressive stuff without references, but this guy ain't no Adam Hughes - his/her drawing, where it can be seen, before it's smudged, is that of a padawan, not a jedi.

And in any case, even a master doesn't get the pose, wrinkles and lighting so consistent and surprising yet photo-realistic. If you've seen a demonstration of such, then that particular artist must have learned that particular image "by heart", done it so many times he can now reproduce it from rote memory. Either that, or you're not remembering it quite right.

The way the face and hands was drawn is no indication that it wasn't traced, quite the contrary. (Why would the artist worry about over-painting a part during an earlier stage, when the image is still clearly visible on the tablet?)

edit: I see you edited in the pic

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[convoyrider]

Well that is a pic of Zhang YI Yi from CTHD and I've seen that pic of her ssomewhere before. Having said that, it is no less impressive, and i learnt a lot from it, especailly blending colours and general procedure.

[edible snowman]

since this is apparently his site, i'm a little confused.

[Kaete]

Regardless of how it was drawn, the animation is a real joy to watch. I wish I could see more of these. It's so wonderful to see a picture grow out of the canvas. It's like peeking over an artists shoulder and not having to worry about annoying them.

[Sumaleth]

Yes, I think regardless of whether he traced it, it's still a fascinating animation. Tracing helps get the outlines, but it's still difficult to get realistic results even if you have a photo source.

Anyway, here's what photoshop has to say on the matter;



At this small size it looks almost perfect, although at fullsize larger differences become apparent.
http://www.sumaleth.com/sumaleth/images/misc/adoreab.gif (fullsize, 752k)
http://www.sumaleth.com/sumaleth/images/misc/adorecopy.jpg (painting, close to the end)

--

Yeah, I think it was traced under the plastic sheet, even if he didn't follow it perfectly, and this probably explains the weird workflow. The painted version was actually rotated ~3 degrees from the photoref. In a way it's disappointing that it's a trace, but it's also a relief.

But still, there are some interesting techniques at work here that I'll be playing with.

Row.

[-HoodZ-]

quote

Quote:

Also, this appears to be a recorded paintchat session, not Painter.

hmm looks like painter cuz you can see that he uses the just add water, or something to blend em....

[Kuren]

Unfortunately, you guys are all wrong. It's oekaki.

His oekaki

Oekaki is a bbs based painting program which has different levels of complexity. This pic was done in oekaki, and I'm guessing the newer scripts (javascript) have more complicated blending. I think it'd be difficult to trace because oekaki are usually no larger than 500 by 500. Some may believe that people cheat, trace and such, but there are a lot of crazy people who oekaki at insane accuracy.

Joy's oekaki natalie portman

Joy's oekaki Ayumi

Joy's painter Angelina Jolie

Take a look at Joy's pics.

The last one although Painter, I'm pretty sure she didn't trace as I believe she mentioned she didn't before.

Ok even though it IS traced...the guy still did it in a javascript based program. I still think that's pretty incredible.

[Pat]

Kuren, you're not right yourself. Oekaki isn't a program, it's a word. In Japanese, it means "rough drawing" or "doodle". The many Java drawing programs you're seeing are just labeled oekaki because that's what you'll find on that page, much as you'd expect to find hyperlinks on a page labeled "links".

-Pat

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Pat ]

[balistic]

Also, this appears to be a recorded paintchat session, not Painter.

[Kuren]

Pat - Oekaki IS a word. But it's done in oekaki...if you don't believe me...go to the board. There's a "view animation" function which I'm sure records the artist's brush strokes and plays them back later a requested time.

his/her oekaki board

Look at the url of the animation, and then look at the URL of his/her oekaki. It's an oekaki bbs. Meaning, when I say it's done in oekaki...it's done using the oekaki bbs program/script.

Like...if you go to one of first guys (I believe) who created Oekaki bbs, they initially called it Paintchat BBS...but then somehow it just became oekaki bbs. Oekaki and paintchat are two different things. Paintchat, you log into a hosted service (much like OpenCanvas)...then a limited amount of users draw all at the same time in one canvas area in realtime. It can be saved and played back at a requested time. This is usually a program or script. Oekaki bbs is basically a forum area which has a javascript program which saves data to an image file, then, when posted, it "adds data" to the bbs/forum (which is CGI)...then it adds all the nifty things like dated time, comments, artist who did it etc as well as the pic. Then you can scroll through the forum, read comments, etc etc...blah blah...like a regular forum.

[turnip]

i'm preetty sure oekaki or paint/drawbbs is the correct or at least most accepted name for these boards. I haven't seen anyone call it otherwise. =)

yeah at any rate it's just an oekaki. Personally I don't like the method it was drawn and personally I don't really care if it were traced or not...it's an oekaki.