Like or hate CGI comics

[VIIStar]

I have a question...
Why is it that whenever I see a CGI comic, it seems like 90% of them are NC-17 or rated adult?

A long long time ago when I was on Devart, it was the same. Someone would get their hands on poser, and all of a sudden they, who I watched for a while for other things, started generating adult images...

What is it about having a realistic human form to play with that all people can think about is sex or adult situations?

[The Neko]

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).

They have more in common than just story. Good CGI requires the same aesthetic skills as a classically-trained artist. The main difference is that the tools are different. Colour, composition, framing, gesture, etc. are all important in both HD and CGI. But I think a lot of CGI artists tend to not bother with these because they assume the "realness" somehow makes them exempt. Or at least that would explain why so many of them look terrible or awkward.

[Datachasers]

ive seen darkness falls - thast useing the exact same models v3 m3 that i use , i have many of the same clothing and sets - and weapons

sadly that IS a drawback to useing the stock models - i prefer to think of them as "actors" that get around a lot -

the most popular being

Victoria 1
Victoria 2
Victoria 3
Victoria 4

Steph one and two ( often called Petite )

Akio and hiro ( anime models )
freak
she- freak

mike 1 to 3

and last but not least
posette and dork ( the default figures that come with poser 1 to 7 )

there are a few more but those seem to be the most popular
the main problem i have is that the female figures seem to have a bottomless pit of clothing and accessorys .. where as poor mike and company bearly have enough clothing to stay decent ...

oh and let us also not forget that vicki and mike are the gods of CGI porn .. having starred in more cheap porn than any human should be able to ( not to mention poor vickis giant boobies that so many hormone depressed freaks seem to like )

i think the "cheap" porn also hurts the CGI comic angle
( even though i might like and even make some from time to time )

[C.w.]

I have a question...
Why is it that whenever I see a CGI comic, it seems like 90% of them are NC-17 or rated adult?

Because people are shallow.

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

Blender is free. Sure, it's not exactly easy to learn, but neither is regular drawing. (I learned way back on version 1.8 - the new versions are way easier)

Even if a person just exported their models to Blender, used good lighting and texturing, and just tried to go beyond "digital dolls" i'd appreciate their effort much much more, and the end result would look a lot better.

Why doesn't anyone do CG comics more like Pixar's stuff, or using abstract cubes, or something OTHER than uncanny valley people?

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.

Well, i'm not expecting Pixar level results, i'm asking why everyone uses Poser models. Why don't we see people who have made their own cartoonish models doing this sort of stuff? I'd posit that even if there were a small minority of people out there doing stuff that wasn't Poser "digital dolls" there wouldn't be quite so much animosity toward the method.

[Jekkal]

My main issue with CGI is the same reason I don't like photo-comics: I don't feel the creative energy involved is sufficient to make the visual impact worthwhile, and it eventually becomes mottled.

HD, for what it's worth, allows for a certain level of simplicity.

[Datachasers]

My main issue with CGI is the same reason I don't like photo-comics: I don't feel the creative energy involved is sufficient to make the visual impact worthwhile, and it eventually becomes mottled.

HD, for what it's worth, allows for a certain level of simplicity.

... ? << changed original responce, ugh >>

can you perhaps be a little more clear on that?

[That guy]

I opt not to vote for lack of an "It depends on the comic" option. As has been previously stated, CGI turns many people off because it appears as though the artist has not put the time & effort into it that a conventional comic artist has. HOWEVER - there are plenty of shoddy hand-drawn comics out there and at least a handful of very well-made CGI comics.

IF your comic is CGI, you are putting yourself in a spotlight. You WILL be scrutinized more closely and if you are not highly original in the WAY in which you utilize the media, you will not impress anyone. As much work as I know you must put into the comics, they need to look outstanding, not just good in order to impress.

THE DREAMLAND CHRONICLES, for example, is CGI at its finest. The characters are all very unique, the staging is clever and dynamic, the lighting is clearly thought-out. Most of all, the expressions and poses never seem stiff/cardboard. They reveal the time and love put into them, which allows you to get past the medium and sucked into the story and artistry.

[Datachasers]

I opt not to vote for lack of an "It depends on the comic" option. As has been previously stated, CGI turns many people off because it appears as though the artist has not put the time & effort into it that a conventional comic artist has. HOWEVER - there are plenty of shoddy hand-drawn comics out there and at least a handful of very well-made CGI comics.

IF your comic is CGI, you are putting yourself in a spotlight. You WILL be scrutinized more closely and if you are not highly original in the WAY in which you utilize the media, you will not impress anyone. As much work as I know you must put into the comics, they need to look outstanding, not just good in order to impress.

THE DREAMLAND CHRONICLES, for example, is CGI at its finest. The characters are all very unique, the staging is clever and dynamic, the lighting is clearly thought-out. Most of all, the expressions and poses never seem stiff/cardboard. They reveal the time and love put into them, which allows you to get past the medium and sucked into the story and artistry.

i tried to make a third middle ground button but it wont let me change it --- bleh

[The Neko]

Definitely. I think people take for granted how much energy and skill that needs to be refined in order to get CGI to look good. Most of the CGI comics I see around the net, though, are not much more than the equivalent of sprite comics, made with awful poser models.

[Princess]

I don't enjoy CGI comics (or animation for that mater) very much- because I feel the technology is in an awkward stage right now. It's stuck uncomfortably between photos and cartoons - neither Arthur nor Martha

[Siabur]

I don't read any cgi comics mainly due to my personal preferences in comics. The few I have checked out were okay to look at but had no story or characters that matterd to me so I would loose interest in them. Which is the same way I judge any comic. I think there are a lot of creative people out there who have a story to tell but don't have the abilities to draw or the desire to. I know that I still prefer pencil and paper to computers. Younger friends are the opposite, can kick my ass in photoshop but can't draw a simple figure on a piece of paper. CGI is another tool. Yes, using the standard people can be dull. For some it could be a way of starting out. Given time, they may learn how to use more of the program and make their own they may not. Now I would love to see a full cgi megaman sprite comic, there would be real comic originallity. [/sarcasm]

[Jackhass]

I don't hate them on principle or anything...

...that said I've never really found one I like much.

[Phact0rri]

I will totally admit that lots of CGI comics do not appeal to me. Its not that I hate CGI (is a video/film production guy), but most of the time, the panels do not move me. Most of them look like 1990's screen shots of Tombraider than they do an quality storyline.

If it has some interesting story, and it melds into a dynamic that works well in the sequencial art form I'm down for it. The thing is most of them, don't really intice me. Most of them look about as hard to do as a Sonic Sprite comic. If I don't feel like the artist is trying to capture me (and this is 2d or 3d) its really not going to be something I'm into.

I like all sorts of art, and I'm open to anything that moves me, makes me laugh, or is riveting enough to put me into another place. I've seen a very few CGI comics that have done that. when the art looks like it was taken straight from poser with no real thought involved with lighting and dynamics... its a turn off.

[Adamiani]

Here'za thing:

1) Poser looks bad. The models look stiff and unoriginal, like mannequins. If there's any truth to the "Uncanny Valley" hypothesis, Poser is right smack dead in the center.

2) Most CGI stuff looks like it's aspiring to realism, rather than a stylized image. When you're trying for realism and failing (due to tools or technique) it looks worse than when you set a bar and go for that-- you'll note that Pixar's stuff has largely on non-humans, and where it's shown them at all, they've been extremely highly stylized.

3) That CGI artists are not infrequently only posing rather than generating their own original models does, indeed, reflect poorly, and lends a machinima feel to it.

[Turnsky]

Here'za thing:
3) That CGI artists are not infrequently only posing rather than generating their own original models does, indeed, reflect poorly, and lends a machinima feel to it.

kinda reminds me of the ol' Sprite comic vs Pixel comic arguement.

the fact being, that a great deal of poser comics don't convey the same degree of motion as the more conventional drawn type of comic does, or the more professionally done CG comic.

The dreamland chronicles is done by a professional studio.
in reality, a good mix of CG and Traditionally done images can work if done right.
i'd have no real problem with poser comics at all if the models most use weren't all the same basic ones. it looks like the creator(s) are just dressing up and posing department store mannequins, to be honest..

CGI is good and fine, but realism isn't everything, given how most of them seem to be of a futuristic setting of some kind, or close enough to it, that realism seems to go out the window.. particularly if most of the characters look like well dressed autons.

the basic gist of what i'm trying to say is, if you wanna use poser, fine, no problems, but use it as a stepping stone until you can learn the real art of computer generated imagry and animation. because as it stands, in reality, you're playing with digital dolls.

[Chuck the Dead]

Okay, now, this is kinda a weird question.
Now i don't particurally like cgi comics, If the guy is being "lazy" and just making a CGI comic, chances are, that he's also going to be lazy with every other aspect of his comic. But if the artist truly likes the look and feel of a CGI rendered comic, then he will probably strive to make all the other aspects good as well.

The only kind of comic i dislike is crappy comics(generic charecters, storylines, etc.)
...Well, that and fury comics, sorry, I'm not trying to flame anybody here, keep on do'n what yer do'n, i just don't like them.

[Reinder]

THE DREAMLAND CHRONICLES, for example, is CGI at its finest. The characters are all very unique, the staging is clever and dynamic, the lighting is clearly thought-out. Most of all, the expressions and poses never seem stiff/cardboard. They reveal the time and love put into them, which allows you to get past the medium and sucked into the story and artistry.

And it's still in the Uncanny Valley half of the time.

[Robin Pierce]

There is one I like. ONE. http://www.davidcsimon.com/crimsondark/
(I swear I've repeated this discussion about a hundred times). The reason I like it is that they used photoshop to take out the majority of the poser aspects, and then painted over it. The problem I do see is that there is still a stiffness and repeatativeness that you wouldn't notice in other mediums, but do in something like this.
Prime example - women walking. They all. walk. the same. Specifically, like a model on the catwalk. Hand out in front, hips swaying to the side.

I did NOT like darkness falls, it looked sloppy, the speech bubbles weren't intergrained and it all looked like stock imaging. I can't tell if it was or not, not having poser, but my first impulse on looking at it was that it WAS.

So yes, I do have a bias against poser comics specifically (maybe not all CGI), but there are exceptions.

[NakedElf]

Okay, so. I went and read your comic. Made lots of notes, which you can have if you want, but are mostly irrelevant at this point.

The biggest 'issue' I have with it is layouts--or more fuzzily, the 'integrated whole'. Don't get me wrong, the pictures themselves are beautiful, but they are often not the right size/shape to make the story flow. I feel like you spent all this time creating these detailed, great pictures, and so by golly we're going to see these pictures whether they help the story or not.

The story itself often feels like it's getting lost or bogged down in the pictures--the number of pictures should be dictated by the flow of the story, but I often feel like the flow of the story is being dictated by the number of pictures.

I know nothing about your creation process (other than that you apparently use a computer program of some sort,) but I think the comic would be more enjoyable to read if the pages were laid out more 'traditional comic book'/'manga style' than the current layout of frame-frame-frame. It's not just that people dislike scrolling--most of your *panels* are so large that I have to scroll to see them, and I'm on a fairly large monitor with good resolution. This is just way too big. Many of your panels could be half their current size and still convey the same relevant information.

I'm not saying it would be better with a different art style. I'm merely talking about the way the panels go together, and I think a more traditional comic book layout style with smaller panels would be better. It also might make the word balloons look less out of place. (I think I mentioned that before? CGI + word balloons looks kind of weird.) Additionally, I think planning out a page of layouts in pencil ahead of time and then making the panels fit the story would improve the overall flow of the story. There are several parts of the comic where the characters basically just stand around and talk to each other (the beginning in particular.) This is boring. At least vary up the panel sizes and whatnot a bit.

So to sum, I think the problem here isn't the CGI, it's that so much time and attention has been lavished on the CGI that it feels like other aspects of the comic-creation process have been neglected, and the whole lacks an 'integrated' feel. I don't feel like I'm reading a comic so much as looking at a bunch of photographs with word balloons tacked on.


Now I suppose I should say some positive things. You have some very nice visuals, and your posing/expressions seem to get better as you go along. The character for whom the CGI works the best I think is the doctor lady in the white outfit, though I do like the troll. You have, unfortunately, some major plot holes, but the characters are on the whole likable (aside from the evil ones,) and I do find myself caring about what happens to them.

Two nitpicks: so far all of the females are extremely thin and attractive and the only non-white humans are evil. (And the big male looks like an action-figure toy.)

These are just my opinions, of course. I think your story is interesting and your characters have good personalities. But it doesn't feel 'whole'.

[Davidcsimon]

I think to say that one hates/likes all "CGI comics" is about as silly as saying that one hates/likes all hand-drawn comics, or all photo-comics, or all sprite comics. It would be prejudiced - literally pre-judging a comic based on the artistic process, rather than the end result.

I produce a CGI comic (a combination of 3D, Illustrator and Photoshop, linked a couple of posts ago), but I don't like many CGI comics simply because most of them aren't very good. But most hand-drawn comics aren't very good either. As with all things on the net, I generally find that only 5% or so of content is actually worth reading. I judge a comic on whether it's well-written and artistically engaging, the process should be irrelevant.