[Capt.FlushGarden]

Hey Dudes and Dudettes!

This is what i'm trying to pull off...
I'm doin it just for fun, no work tingy.
it's far from done, but i won't continue without the help from u guys hehe

&"��/!")�!"(!!!
I used two references for this picture..
one picture of a sky with clouds
http://www.geocities.com/mechanicdragon/SClouds.jpg

And one of craig mullins pictures, (so dahmn beautiful) I hope he doesn't mind
*educational purpose only spoogie!* http://www.goodbrush.com/hirez_pgs/matte/matte4/toyotatower.htm


Please help me...





[This message has been edited by Capt.FlushGarden (edited January 31, 2001).]

[strata]

Imho, it doesn't look grotesquely big enough =)

plus the rest of the area behind it looks pretty empty...

I don't know squat about this tho, so don't listen to me. I like it.

A bit sunny and happier then what you normally see in these pics

------------------
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

[SporQ]

right now, your clouds look sorta like they are smoke from a fire, not clouds. clouds generally rest on a plane, i think you neeed to work to convey this more...

the pic is wonderful though. i really like how that one "track" is reflected on the big building.

SporQ

[Blitz]

Well Captain, lets see....hmmm
As far as technical aspects go you are way better than me so I really couldnt help you.
The best I can do is give you my personal feelings about it so far. I find it kind of boaring. The colors all seem about the same, very cool and grey Not that thats a bad thing. I think maybe some sort of sunset or different color sky so that it can have an interesting efect on some of the buildings color wise. Especialy if some of the buildings are reflectiv.
What makes Mullins Pic so interesting is that the cinter building is so different and interesting compaired to all the others. All of the ones in yours so far really blend in and none really stick out becuse of there design.
Maybe think of the cinter building that you are focusing on as the sky scraper of your dreams. What would you want it to look like. This is a 2D pic in whitch you can do anything you want. Think (Form beffore function) Meaning, maybe dont worry about how it would stand and be put together but maybe focus more on the design and how it looks first.(This is only what I think, This may be the skyscraper of your dreams )
Anyway Flush, Your stuff kicks ass, my stuff starts out cool in my head and then comes out all wrong on paper PRACTICE is the key.

Also if I can, Ill get Skeezer to post some of his futuristic drawings and cities. He paints well but not as good as you yet. But his pencil work and designs beond awsome.

Well if this was any help Im happy to help. Especialy someone of your calaber.

May the force be with you

Blitz....Im a huge Medievel Fantasy buff anyway, what would I know of Sci-Fi

[This message has been edited by Blitz (edited January 31, 2001).]

[::nox|silicon::]

it looks too empty and... don't know - somehow not futuristic enough imho.

I'm currently working on a major futuristic-city 3d-scenery for a film - I'll piost some shoty by the end of february...

------------------
---
::nox|silicon::
freezeframez.org

[quaternius]

man, nothing like practicing on something small and simple...heh. Umm... how 'bout some darker/warmer color combinations in the foreground to pull a few things forward?

Why not experiment with some gray-greens, gray-blues, gray-violets, gray-pinks, grayish yellows, etc. buildings have pink granite, green granite, yellow brick, blue glass, green glass, etc.

just some thoughts... keep goin', this looks like hard work, but somethin' you'll learn a lot from.

Q

[LordArioch]

Aside from the curved fish-eye perspective not being evenly applied to all the objects (for instance, the bridge to the right of the central building is straight), it looks fine to me. I light the lighting and the clouds. There's not much going on, but there doesn't have to be.

[ZenDrag0n]

I've never been a fan of the fisheye lense type deal. Yeah, it may be more accurate to true vision, but you mind doesn't interpretate it that way, or at least mine doesn't, so even though it looks cool, it always bugs me.

Still I can't bitch, you are doing an excellent job, as you tend to do.

[Flinthawk]

Well, it looks empty because it is empty No bustling people, cars stuck in traffic, hot dog vendors, random trash, etc. It's going to be hard to make this look busy or alive because you're at ground level where all that stuff takes place. In Craig's pic you're way up above where none of that stuff is in view so the buildings are the only focus. Either add some activity down there on the ground plane or you're going to have a helluva time making this scene look right, or real I should say, which might not be what you're going for.

I don't have any crits as to how you've pulled this piece off so far technically, it looks rather well done, though I could probably find something if I tried really hard My only observation is that I think that the lack of activity is making it hard for people to see this as a city. Hope that helps any, good job so far.

-Flinthawk

[This message has been edited by Flinthawk (edited January 31, 2001).]

[dreddawg]

Capt.

I could probably pick out 20 things that I would do differently from an architectural standpoint and none of them would be any better than what you have. Like any city, the thing that sells it (particularly New York) is how cosmopolitan it is. When I design environments I always think about how citizens travel from one point to the next. The thing I'd ask is if your futuristic city is built on public transportation (trains helibuses etc.) , private vehicles(cars: air or wheels), Bicycles, or anti-gravity tubes:-). Then just think about how some nutty architect would integrate traffic from one point to the next. Beyond that how are the citizen's dress, sociopolitics, and ecomomic status? In short, add all of the details. I guess I could have said that instead:-) Regards

[Anthony]

Hey Cap'n. How about adding more details to the forground buildings, and the base of the main building?

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Francis]

Very nicely done image. One thing that I notice is that the scale of the middle building is being thrown off a bit. Look at the two overpasses - they seem like they are about the same size and scale, judging from the similar vertical supports. The one in the background passes behind the main building, which makes it seem a lot smaller than you probably intended.

Also, the vanishing points of the bridge as opposed to the foreground brigdge seem to point to different horizon lines, or your horizon line is not level (which is not incorrect necessarily) but your verticals suggest you aren't tilting your horizon.

Hope that makes sense.

------------------
Francis Tsai
TeamGT Studios

[TheMilkMan]

I can tell you that here is a lot of perspective problems here. I have an easy answer for you when working on something like this ....use 3d program to mock up generic reference points...Me and the spoogmeister and many other use this technique it really helps you get very good perspective!!! Then again it is also good to practice on your own and get an eye for it.
I would start by setting up another layer and using the line tool to match up the buildings along a degree of rotation that way you can get that cool fish eye perspective without errors..but the pis has a lot of good things going on also..you sure have an eye for detail and lighting.

[Snake Grunger]

I tried to correct the perspective on the far-center-left overpass and on the bottom-right closer one.. But I didn't bring them up forward enough. I also un-perspective-rounded your center building.

I know maybe you wanted to have a fish-eye kind of effect, but this can be very misleading sometimes if not mastered correctly.

Also, there's now a Quake3Arena building!
This is my beer, WHEEEEEAAAAAK!

[This message has been edited by Snake Grunger (edited January 31, 2001).]

[Dan]

the problem I see, assuming that the middle building is fisheyed and the not just a wierd shaped building, is that the other buildings get farther away from it as they go up, rather than nearer as they should if it is indeed using vertical perspective. By the perspective you're using, u should have a vanishing point way up high to give u an estimate of where the vertical lines are going, then using that as a guide, u can fish-eye it which basically is just sorta curving the stuff near the edge so as to cram a dispoportianite amount of edge stuff into the picture. I hope this post isn't to disorganized and I make a little bit of sense here.

[Joachim]

I think it looks very nice Capitan...nice light and all. I have big respect for what you do.
I haven't read what the others have said, but what I miss the most is some life..especially on the ground. Unless you wanted it to look very clinical ?

------------------
www.JoachimArt.com

[Capt.FlushGarden]

Hey computergeeks!

thanx yall! What I've learned now is...

dont fuck with fish eye perspective...
I havent mastered perspective, so why try to do a fish eyed one?? It's like learning to ride a bike and then take off with a multirole jetfighter....

I really have to do an accurate linedrawing first, all I did was a few lines here and there...

as I said the painting is not finished, so that's why it's so empty, I was thinking of lots of commercial and traffic, maybe a monorail or something...
well I'll keep on working

well

[Gecko]

I was too tired to reply last night, and I'm just gonna say that even if riding that jet fighter is damn hard, don't give up on it :)

the pic is damn nice, regardless of the perspective issue

------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net

[spooge demon]

This looks nice flush.

There are two ways to get this to look big.

1) exaggerate the atmospheric perspective. Quick and dirty and effective. Hide it all in low contrast.

2) make everything perfect. Perfect drawing, values, everything. Seems obvious and you say, I would if I could, but no eyeball perspectives, get the exact diminishing scale on everything. And objects of this size and complexity have a large number of different types of materials and details. You have to do each one and think about each one.

That is really hard. How do you show the difference between marble and brick at 2 miles?

This is really one of the tougher subjects to do well. Keep at it, all the other comments I see make sense to me. And leave that fisheye alone. It's a photographer�s trick that will just make things 5 times harder.

edit. hmm just saw the link to that toyota tower thing. There is another one looking up a huge column that is a much better painting and is more applicable to this subject and angle. That tower one is too hazed-client request. I did it with no atmosphere at first and it looked better.


[This message has been edited by spooge demon (edited February 01, 2001).]