(( edited to remove my opinion ))
do you like or hate CGI based comics
and why?
( this is based on story / art NOT seperating them )
Like or hate CGI comics
-
Datachasers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:54 am
- Location: in hell ( pheonix AZ )
- Contact:
Like or hate CGI comics
(( edited to change the context of the poll ...))
(( edited to remove my opinion ))
do you like or hate CGI based comics
and why?
( this is based on story / art NOT seperating them )
(( edited to remove my opinion ))
do you like or hate CGI based comics
and why?
( this is based on story / art NOT seperating them )
Last edited by Datachasers on Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.
-- R. Heinlein
-- R. Heinlein
I'm not against CGI comics, i've even seen a few quality ones i really enjoyed.
The problem with CGI comics is that they tend to feel too "plastic". You have all the photo-realistic images with characters still looking somehow unnatural.
Also, the lack of action-lines give it a static feel: for example, characters that are supposed to be fighting, often look like they're just standing there in an action pose, as they're actually doing.
I think there are the main issues against CGI comics, and what makes lots of readers not feeling comfortable with them.
The problem with CGI comics is that they tend to feel too "plastic". You have all the photo-realistic images with characters still looking somehow unnatural.
Also, the lack of action-lines give it a static feel: for example, characters that are supposed to be fighting, often look like they're just standing there in an action pose, as they're actually doing.
I think there are the main issues against CGI comics, and what makes lots of readers not feeling comfortable with them.
Jops
-
Datachasers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:54 am
- Location: in hell ( pheonix AZ )
- Contact:
action
thats what photoshop is for ( guassian blur ) i use that to indicate highspeedJops wrote:I'm not against CGI comics, i've even seen a few quality ones i really enjoyed.
The problem with CGI comics is that they tend to feel too "plastic". You have all the photo-realistic images with characters still looking somehow unnatural.
Also, the lack of action-lines give it a static feel: for example, characters that are supposed to be fighting, often look like they're just standing there in an action pose, as they're actually doing.
I think there are the main issues against CGI comics, and what makes lots of readers not feeling comfortable with them.
i do get what your saying though - and a lot of them DO look plastic - sometimes thats what the artist intends OR he/she doesnt know how to use displacement /bump mapping to kill the plastic look
a lot of anime uses a very unreal method of drawing thats never the same from moment to moment even in the "serious" comics if its anime it nomally containes some sort of silly cartoony change in the charcter to indicate stress or anger or total surprise , this isnt needed but its part of the "style"
in any case thanks for the info Jops
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.
-- R. Heinlein
-- R. Heinlein
I was a digital art student and we worked with Maya for building characters, sets, textures, and made everything by hand. We had to model, rig, program, texture, etc etc, our own characters, sets, animation, effects, etc etc, and it took longer than a month to create the basic parts to fill the scene.i know some see it as a short cut or "lazy" nothing could be farther from the truth , i have spent as long as 6 hours making a character and longer still on textures and making "sets"
6 hours and I could melScript you a set of hands... and perhaps IK/FK arms.
To me, with my little experience in industry standard applications, programs like poser feel like 3d clip art. You can modify existing models, retexture them, etc, but you don't work from scratch, there's a base starting point, and a pool of things to scavenge from.
I guess, I look at work created from CGI programs and that’s all I can think of, CGI as a shortcut.
<a href ="http://viistar.comicgenesis.com"><img src = "http://www.viistar.com/blog/raeuxbanner.png" border =0></a> updates on all even days
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com/comic">Raeux Mirrored site</a> updated 12.02.07
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com">VIIStar.com</a>
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com/comic">Raeux Mirrored site</a> updated 12.02.07
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com">VIIStar.com</a>
I have no doubt that CGI is a lot of work--but if I like a comic, I don't care *how* much work went into it. I like Dinosaur Comics and XKCD, after all.
The problem with CGI, as I see it, is that it's a relatively new medium, and I don't think people have figured exactly how to best use it yet. Think about when you get a 'movie book' with still frames from a movie. Even if the movie was a cartoon, the book's going to read differently than a regular comic strip would, simply because the way you convey things in a continuous action movie is different from a comic.
Most CGI comics I've seen have a similar feel to them as a book of movie stills. The visuals can be absolutely astounding, but the net effect is still a bit jarring. And if my brain is constantly going 'ergg' while reading a comic, that's not good.
For the record, I've passed over regular hand-drawn comics for the same reason--I remember one comic I read which was actually pretty good, but the artist had difficulty with poses--in particular, the characters always looked very rigid, and the females' breasts were placed too high on their chests. (Descending from the armpits! Not even with them!) In the end, I just didn't want to look at those awkward people with their alien boobs.
Even still, I think a Shreck comic done out of still frames from the movies would look awkward.
I like the idea of an abstract CGI comic, although I have to wonder if it would be worth all of the extra effort. Why not just be lazy and draw a cube the old fashioned way? :P
The problem with CGI, as I see it, is that it's a relatively new medium, and I don't think people have figured exactly how to best use it yet. Think about when you get a 'movie book' with still frames from a movie. Even if the movie was a cartoon, the book's going to read differently than a regular comic strip would, simply because the way you convey things in a continuous action movie is different from a comic.
Most CGI comics I've seen have a similar feel to them as a book of movie stills. The visuals can be absolutely astounding, but the net effect is still a bit jarring. And if my brain is constantly going 'ergg' while reading a comic, that's not good.
For the record, I've passed over regular hand-drawn comics for the same reason--I remember one comic I read which was actually pretty good, but the artist had difficulty with poses--in particular, the characters always looked very rigid, and the females' breasts were placed too high on their chests. (Descending from the armpits! Not even with them!) In the end, I just didn't want to look at those awkward people with their alien boobs.
Just going out on a limb here, but I imagine that Pixar has full-time highly trained teams of animators working together for several years on high-quality software, which is probably not something your Average Jo can really do in their spare time.c.w. wrote:Why doesn't anyone do CG comics more like Pixar's stuff, or using abstract cubes, or something OTHER than uncanny valley people?
Even still, I think a Shreck comic done out of still frames from the movies would look awkward.
I like the idea of an abstract CGI comic, although I have to wonder if it would be worth all of the extra effort. Why not just be lazy and draw a cube the old fashioned way? :P
-
Datachasers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:54 am
- Location: in hell ( pheonix AZ )
- Contact:
suckage can happen no matter what the medium - however - i think more the question is , do you feel CGI comics should be held in the samne regard as handdrawn - after all they both take workNakedElf wrote:I have no doubt that CGI is a lot of work--but if I like a comic, I don't care *how* much work went into it. I like Dinosaur Comics and XKCD, after all.
Most CGI comics I've seen have a similar feel to them as a book of movie stills. The visuals can be absolutely astounding, but the net effect is still a bit jarring. And if my brain is constantly going 'ergg' while reading a comic, that's not good.
Just going out on a limb here, but I imagine that Pixar has full-time highly trained teams of animators working together for several years on high-quality software.c.w. wrote:Why doesn't anyone do CG comics more like Pixar's stuff, or using abstract cubes, or something OTHER than uncanny valley people?
Even still, I think a Shreck comic done out of still frames from the movies would look awkward.
I like the idea of an abstract CGI comic, although I have to wonder if it would be worth all of the extra effort. Why not just be lazy and draw a cube the old fashioned way?
they both can suck or be fantastic
there really isnt much of a diffrence except for the finished product
and i do wish people would at least not go " YUCK its a cgi comic" and give it a chance ... keep a open mind ...
artists should never be close minded to new ideas ./. it can ruin the talent -
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.
-- R. Heinlein
-- R. Heinlein
-
The Neko
- A Blithe ray of Schadenfreude
- Posts: 3878
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:16 pm
- Location: New York City
God I hate them. It's not bad enough that most of the time the people look like plastic with poor lighting, but most of the artists can't pose people for shit. It's kind of like a 2D artist who doesn't know figure or doesn't understand composition or dynamics, it just looks awful. But with 3D and the poor posing, it just looks even more like a plastic doll.
I just find that a lot of the 3D people assume that because they don't have to draw it, they don't have to learn anatomy, figure, and other important features that 2D artists have to learn.
The reason Pixar does so well is that they hire CLASSIC animators, and then teach them to do 3D. It's not the other way around.
I just find that a lot of the 3D people assume that because they don't have to draw it, they don't have to learn anatomy, figure, and other important features that 2D artists have to learn.
The reason Pixar does so well is that they hire CLASSIC animators, and then teach them to do 3D. It's not the other way around.
Hey, at least you aren't doing furry CGI sprite comics--then people'd really discriminate!
Personally, I hold all comics to the exact same standard: Do I want to come back and read more of this? Do I find myself thinking about the comic later?
The last CGI comic I browsed had nice visuals, but only a few comics actually up, so it lost my interest for reasons completely irrelevant to the art. (That was kind of a disappointment, since the art was good.)
I read 'furry' comics, I read stick-figure comics, I read comics with art that must have taken days, I read sprite comics, etc. If the art *works* with the comic, then it works, and I'm not going to complain about the style. And I fully believe there are CGI comics which do 'work'--but I think because it's a new technique, people haven't quite figured it out yet, which means there's going to be a lot of crappy CGI out there, which means that unfortunately, people are going to pick up negative associations. :(
Speaking solely for myself, I'll give any comic an honest chance, CGI or not, but experience so far indicates that it will probably look 'odd' to me.
*Edit* Big problem I tend to have with CGI comics--the text and the comics don't 'fit' together. For example, take a crappily drawn comic like XKCD--the text is done by hand and 'fits' with the art. A more 'polished' looking comic like Penny Arcade has more polished text.
The text bubbles in CGI comics I've seen remind me of those 'witty' stickers you can get to put on photographs, so you can have captions coming out of your pissed off looking cat or whatever. Anyway, out of place, kind of jarring. *Goes off to read your comic to see if she can make any specific recommendations*
Personally, I hold all comics to the exact same standard: Do I want to come back and read more of this? Do I find myself thinking about the comic later?
The last CGI comic I browsed had nice visuals, but only a few comics actually up, so it lost my interest for reasons completely irrelevant to the art. (That was kind of a disappointment, since the art was good.)
I read 'furry' comics, I read stick-figure comics, I read comics with art that must have taken days, I read sprite comics, etc. If the art *works* with the comic, then it works, and I'm not going to complain about the style. And I fully believe there are CGI comics which do 'work'--but I think because it's a new technique, people haven't quite figured it out yet, which means there's going to be a lot of crappy CGI out there, which means that unfortunately, people are going to pick up negative associations. :(
Speaking solely for myself, I'll give any comic an honest chance, CGI or not, but experience so far indicates that it will probably look 'odd' to me.
*Edit* Big problem I tend to have with CGI comics--the text and the comics don't 'fit' together. For example, take a crappily drawn comic like XKCD--the text is done by hand and 'fits' with the art. A more 'polished' looking comic like Penny Arcade has more polished text.
The text bubbles in CGI comics I've seen remind me of those 'witty' stickers you can get to put on photographs, so you can have captions coming out of your pissed off looking cat or whatever. Anyway, out of place, kind of jarring. *Goes off to read your comic to see if she can make any specific recommendations*
-
McDuffies
- Bob was here (Moderator)
- Posts: 29957
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Serbia
- Contact:
Why is that a concern? Some people have that reaction for manga comics, others have for fantasy comics, slice-of-life comics, gaming comics, etc etc etc. But people prejudice because it actually saves a lot of effort for them, if you don't like CGI that doesn't mean that there isn't one or two in a crowd that you wouldn't like, but it means that it's not worth doing through dozens of them that you don't like, just to find one that you do. One's enjoying of comic, after all, isn't defined only by objective it's good/it's not good of the comic, but also by his own personal taste.datachasers wrote:there really isnt much of a diffrence except for the finished product
and i do wish people would at least not go " YUCK its a cgi comic" and give it a chance ... keep a open mind ...
I don't know about saying 'the only difference is in the finished product'. If i gathered up all my old comic books, my manga, artbooks, and some old images and spliced them together, i'd probably get laughed outta dodge...suckage can happen no matter what the medium - however - i think more the question is , do you feel CGI comics should be held in the samne regard as handdrawn - after all they both take work
they both can suck or be fantastic
there really isnt much of a diffrence except for the finished product
and i do wish people would at least not go " YUCK its a cgi comic" and give it a chance ... keep a open mind ...
I think the way to help CGI comics would be to not use stock models. (i couldn't think of that word earlier)
<a href ="http://viistar.comicgenesis.com"><img src = "http://www.viistar.com/blog/raeuxbanner.png" border =0></a> updates on all even days
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com/comic">Raeux Mirrored site</a> updated 12.02.07
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com">VIIStar.com</a>
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com/comic">Raeux Mirrored site</a> updated 12.02.07
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com">VIIStar.com</a>
-
Datachasers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:54 am
- Location: in hell ( pheonix AZ )
- Contact:
you have some good points
(( disclamer : this is in NO way to be a attack on anyones ability or comic-)) this is just a discussion -
i think one of the reasons ( i know one of mine is ) is that "stock" models are a heck of a lot cheaper and easyer to use as a "default" human body , why re-invent the wheel ?
i try to start with a feature or something that sets the chacter apart - be it eyes nose or some such - the other reason that many use the "stock" models is that the softwear needed to create them is ugly expensive ( upwards of 300.00 ) DAZ studio is .. free. poser 7 is around 200.00
also you practicly need a degree to use most of these programs that "make" the stock models or a programmer or coder -
i think of it as playing with digital dolls.. or bianary Barbies .. its fun
admittedly i laugh when i see most of the comics out there , but i judge them based on the artwork first , story second - my list is all over the map
( except furrys , they give me the creeps )
but i guess my point is that anything can tell a story ( yes even stick figures :bleh: ) but anyof them should at least be worth a look rather than condem them outright -
i like most of the comics of the people that post on here i have a Sh** load of them in my shortcuts folder that i look at there is only ONE comic artist ive ever given money to, and entertainment is the goal of anything
anyhow thank you everyone for voting and commenting
your comments can help me "adjust" things ( inso much as i can ) to make them less :yucky: i know i have few readers , ( at work and a few people that know me ) and thats i guess what matters -
(( disclamer : this is in NO way to be a attack on anyones ability or comic-)) this is just a discussion -
VIIStar wrote:I don't know about saying 'the only difference is in the finished product'. If i gathered up all my old comic books, my manga, artbooks, and some old images and spliced them together, i'd probably get laughed outta dodge...suckage can happen no matter what the medium - however - i think more the question is , do you feel CGI comics should be held in the samne regard as handdrawn - after all they both take work
they both can suck or be fantastic
there really isnt much of a diffrence except for the finished product
and i do wish people would at least not go " YUCK its a cgi comic" and give it a chance ... keep a open mind ...
I think the way to help CGI comics would be to not use stock models. (i couldn't think of that word earlier)
i think one of the reasons ( i know one of mine is ) is that "stock" models are a heck of a lot cheaper and easyer to use as a "default" human body , why re-invent the wheel ?
i try to start with a feature or something that sets the chacter apart - be it eyes nose or some such - the other reason that many use the "stock" models is that the softwear needed to create them is ugly expensive ( upwards of 300.00 ) DAZ studio is .. free. poser 7 is around 200.00
also you practicly need a degree to use most of these programs that "make" the stock models or a programmer or coder -
i think of it as playing with digital dolls.. or bianary Barbies .. its fun
admittedly i laugh when i see most of the comics out there , but i judge them based on the artwork first , story second - my list is all over the map
( except furrys , they give me the creeps )
but i guess my point is that anything can tell a story ( yes even stick figures :bleh: ) but anyof them should at least be worth a look rather than condem them outright -
i like most of the comics of the people that post on here i have a Sh** load of them in my shortcuts folder that i look at there is only ONE comic artist ive ever given money to, and entertainment is the goal of anything
anyhow thank you everyone for voting and commenting
your comments can help me "adjust" things ( inso much as i can ) to make them less :yucky: i know i have few readers , ( at work and a few people that know me ) and thats i guess what matters -
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.
-- R. Heinlein
-- R. Heinlein
-
McDuffies
- Bob was here (Moderator)
- Posts: 29957
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Serbia
- Contact:
But... that's like saying "Why should I invent my own drawing style when I can just rip off Harold Foster".datachasers wrote:i think one of the reasons ( i know one of mine is ) is that "stock" models are a heck of a lot cheaper and easyer to use as a "default" human body , why re-invent the wheel ?
-
EvilChihuahua
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 720
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:59 pm
- Location: Canadaland
- Contact:
-
Datachasers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:54 am
- Location: in hell ( pheonix AZ )
- Contact:
not quite - ripping off harold foster would be wrong -mcDuffies wrote:But... that's like saying "Why should I invent my own drawing style when I can just rip off Harold Foster".datachasers wrote:i think one of the reasons ( i know one of mine is ) is that "stock" models are a heck of a lot cheaper and easyer to use as a "default" human body , why re-invent the wheel ?
even regular comics use the same "human" body as a base -
all 3d models are copywrite free on images - besides "out of the box" they are ugly as sin .... you have to shape and mould and texture them before they are acceptable - thats where the "art" comes in , as well as lighting - poses - and sets ( locations ) even camera angles -
all a person is doing by useing a "stock" model is not haveing to have a grossly expensive / complex / overrated program that takes a ton of time to use properly .. not to mention rigging and bones are already done as well .
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.
-- R. Heinlein
-- R. Heinlein
-
Datachasers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:54 am
- Location: in hell ( pheonix AZ )
- Contact:
... but but but.... that's the fun part!! ;__;not to mention rigging and bones are already done as well .
rigging and melScript separates the girls from the Women.... it's all about the clavicals....
<a href ="http://viistar.comicgenesis.com"><img src = "http://www.viistar.com/blog/raeuxbanner.png" border =0></a> updates on all even days
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com/comic">Raeux Mirrored site</a> updated 12.02.07
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com">VIIStar.com</a>
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com/comic">Raeux Mirrored site</a> updated 12.02.07
<a href ="http://www.viistar.com">VIIStar.com</a>
-
Dr Neo Lao
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:21 am
- Location: Australia
I don't like how so many people try and lump hand-drawn (HD) with computer generated images (CGI).
HD has a long and dignified history and is mainly about the drawing skill of the author. If you were working on a professional comic, you'd have some people dedicated to writing the story, others dedicated to layout and others dedicated to doing the actual drawing.
But this discussion isn't about professionals, this is about Average Joe doing a webcomic as a hobby. And then taking it one step further and talking about Average Joe making a webcomic on their own and it's a CGI webcomic. The only way to become more instantly-ostracized is to make a furry CGI webcomic.
CGI is in it's own category beside HD. The finished products are fairly similar, but the route taken is markedly different. HD requires a lot of physical co-ordination in order to get the drawing to convey the right information. You have to re-draw the characters for every panel. With CGI, once the model is built you can effectively use them over and over and take thousands of pictures of them without any further work on them.
However, both require that the author be able to generate a good story. A plain, boring story with the most exquisite HD artwork is not going to keep a lot of interest (except for the eye candy). A plain, boring story with the most exquisite CGI artwork is not going to keep a lot of interest either (again, except for the eye candy). And both require that the author have good eye for the asthetic (how it looks).
Think of it this way: two people have a song and you want to make video clips for it. One makes a traditional live-action video clip. They need to organise locations, actors, props and camera + lighting. The other decides to make a stop-motion video clip. They will need to build sets, make characters and props and organise camera + lighting. The two are fairly similar and end up with the same result (a music video clip) but the way they do it is very different.
A CGI comic that I thought was really well done (artistically) was / is Darkness Falls (now hosted on Drnk Duck, registration required). You can still see one of the models in the banner though, and the use of lighting and shadows is superb. The story was excrutiatingly slow (usually one sentance per panel) but the artwork was great, and I think that Jeanette used stock models as well. (This is not intended as a slight on Jeanette's comic, I just found the pacing to be very slow for my liking.)
I'd like to get into making CGI comics, but I've been trying to get a medium were I don't have to sit in front of a computer for hours on end. So there goes that idea.
And I'd love to see a CGI webcomic with custom models and great lighting. Alas, I fear I shall be waiting a long time...
HD has a long and dignified history and is mainly about the drawing skill of the author. If you were working on a professional comic, you'd have some people dedicated to writing the story, others dedicated to layout and others dedicated to doing the actual drawing.
But this discussion isn't about professionals, this is about Average Joe doing a webcomic as a hobby. And then taking it one step further and talking about Average Joe making a webcomic on their own and it's a CGI webcomic. The only way to become more instantly-ostracized is to make a furry CGI webcomic.
CGI is in it's own category beside HD. The finished products are fairly similar, but the route taken is markedly different. HD requires a lot of physical co-ordination in order to get the drawing to convey the right information. You have to re-draw the characters for every panel. With CGI, once the model is built you can effectively use them over and over and take thousands of pictures of them without any further work on them.
However, both require that the author be able to generate a good story. A plain, boring story with the most exquisite HD artwork is not going to keep a lot of interest (except for the eye candy). A plain, boring story with the most exquisite CGI artwork is not going to keep a lot of interest either (again, except for the eye candy). And both require that the author have good eye for the asthetic (how it looks).
Think of it this way: two people have a song and you want to make video clips for it. One makes a traditional live-action video clip. They need to organise locations, actors, props and camera + lighting. The other decides to make a stop-motion video clip. They will need to build sets, make characters and props and organise camera + lighting. The two are fairly similar and end up with the same result (a music video clip) but the way they do it is very different.
A CGI comic that I thought was really well done (artistically) was / is Darkness Falls (now hosted on Drnk Duck, registration required). You can still see one of the models in the banner though, and the use of lighting and shadows is superb. The story was excrutiatingly slow (usually one sentance per panel) but the artwork was great, and I think that Jeanette used stock models as well. (This is not intended as a slight on Jeanette's comic, I just found the pacing to be very slow for my liking.)
I'd like to get into making CGI comics, but I've been trying to get a medium were I don't have to sit in front of a computer for hours on end. So there goes that idea.
And I'd love to see a CGI webcomic with custom models and great lighting. Alas, I fear I shall be waiting a long time...