Topic awaiting preservation: pixel - carrier transport c+c (Page 1 of 1)

Okay, so I took the whole thing and completely revamped it. I also have two different layouts.

layout #1:


layout #2:


On a side note, the shadows were seriously killing me. I stressed over them for 3 days and I'm still not totally pleased but I've reworked them as much as I can.

So, c+c and which layout you like better. Cheers.

:edit: Amazing what difference one letter makes. Kidding != Killing

(Edited by silence on 01-07-2005 10:35)

nice! i love the first one, especially the car and the traces in the sand. well, for me this one looks already perfect, so i cant give any tips for improvement great job!

B | T | E | P | L

I definately like the first one. I like when stuff looks busy instead of dormant. And the shadows look great in my opinion

Definately the first 1. The sand marks however should be equidistant, they can be closer together during the curve (back wheels taking a different path) but then both lines have to be thicker. Both sides need to be mirrors of one another and smoother; any good operator is going to make lines that are very smooth and uniform.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 01-07-2005 13:30)

Thanks, Warmage, I'll fix that. And now that you've mentioned it, there's no sand buildup on the wheels either. Things to do...

:edit: bad siggy

(Edited by silence on 01-07-2005 16:54)

I think the cart looks too two dimensional. It's all pretty much flat light grey. No tone changes. (I didn't say I could do any better...but you asked.) Compare the flat grey on the cart with the very big, dark, serious shadows being cast...no good.
Also, I think the shadows of the handrail should be less defined. Those shadow lines are pretty thin, on uneven sand/dust, at that distance? It doesn't look right. Probably, at a second-story level, those thin handrails wouldn't cast much (if any) of a discernable shadow at all.

All in all, both are pretty damn impressive. I like the direction, the action, movement, of the first one better than the static second one.

Mobrul, mate, we're all family here. By all means, tear it to shreds. And I'm not being sarcastic either. It's one of the best ways to improve, IMO.

If by the cart you mean the tray holding the bike, then I think you have a point. I didn't really look at it since I wasn't sure if I was going to have the bike obscure it or not, but I'll add something to break up that monotony.

I think you're right about the handrails as well. I'll lighten up the shadows for those, and maybe dirty them up a bit.

It was hard enough doing all the primary shadows, and thinking about secondary shadows (shadows cast within a shadowed area) just gives me a headache, but that might give it that extra bit of style. On the other hand, I'm trying to keep a lid on my palette. So far it's just shy of 64 colors (with the judicious use of blue/grey), but, again, that extra bit might be worth it.

:edit: bad siggy again

(Edited by silence on 01-07-2005 16:54)

By "the cart" I meant that 4 wheeled vehicle out on the surface (in #1).
I said it looked mostly 1 flat grey. Well, just to be sure, I took it into PS and, using that handy eyedropper tool, found that you indeed used several colors.

My eyes, not being as sophisticated as the eyedropper tool, only distinguishes 4 shades of grey (not counting obvious blue of the windshield nor the brown of the seat).
I can see:
one light shade, you use mostly for outlining the parts.
one light-medium shade you use for majority of the cart.
one dark-medium shade you use for the shadows within the cart.
one dark shade you use for the sidewalls of the tires.

I now "know" you've used more, but I can't distinguish them with my eyes alone. That's what I meant when I wrote earlier that it looked "too two dimensional" compared with the shadows of the cart on the surface. The shadows on the surface (from the cart and the building) are serious shadows, indicating a VERY strong light source (nuclear fission at ~93 million miles?) The lack of difference of shades on the cart indicate to my eyes a much less strong/harsh light source.
Does that make sense?

YMMV, of course. If you're happy there is enough distinction, by all means, don't let me stop you. You've got a good thing going there. I'm very impressed with what you have done so far.

Shouldn't the little guy standing beside the runabout show some foot prints in the sand? For that matter why would he drive thirty feet and the get off? Maybe he should be on the driver's seat

Is that a wind shield on the front of the runabout? Wouldn't a vehicle that size have an enclosed cabin?

You did a really nice job of showing the sand building up around the treads of the what-ever-it-is. Shouldn't it be leaving tracks behind it? Deep tracks, not shallow ones like the runabout is leaving.

I think all the shadows should have some blur applied to them.

The shadows behind the what-ever-it-is and the runabout go straight back from the object and the ones from all the people figures go to the left.

There is an instrument box sticking up beside the green figure. It should be casting a shadow.

I think you should add some transparency to the face plates on the helmits.

-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

Now we're cooking with gas!

Mobrul: Aaah. I went back and checked on that and you're right. The shades are too close together and there's not enough contrast. I'll fix the palette on that for sure.

hyperbole: The footprints are a great idea. You're right about the shadows also. I'll have to skew the ones on the figures to match the general direction of the rest. The instrument box shadow kind of blends into the elevator shadow so it's not that noticable. However, once I've fixed the shadow direction you should be able to see it.

Also, now that you mention it, the windshield's buggin me too. I'll either lose it completely or revamp the cockpit.

Funnily enough, the carrier does leave tracks but they're subtle. Too subtle, I guess. I'll make them more prominent.

Now, although I hate people who go on about "no, no, no, it's supposed to be that way", I have to fudge on the rest of the comments.

He only drives thirty feet and gets off because he has to get out of the phase interference wave of the carrier. The real reason is to keep the file dimensions to a minimum.

The faceplate is roughly 7 pixels by 6 pixels so any transparency isn't going to show much anyway, but I'll see if I can do something with it.

As for blurring the shadows, even mentioning the blur tool is grounds for a beating at the pure pixelers bar. They get a funny look if they think you're not doing all your anti-aliasing by hand.

For myself, since I'm not that extreme yet, even a light blur would add 6 or 7 shades for the AAing and I'm trying to keep a lid on the filesize.

However, thanks to everybody who commented. I'm working on all the changes mentioned and I'll probably have the final-final version up on my deviantart page and hopefully it'll be on pixelmoon.

silence,

What I meant with my comment about the wind shield is: They're on the moon, There is no wind. There really is no need for a wind shield. THere is more of a need for a space you can get into and breath, like a cockpit.

I really like the way you have made the sand build up around the treads of the carrier and the wheels of the runabout, but if the wheels are digging in so much that the sand is building up in front of them, the tracks they leave behind won't be subtle. They will be depressions in the sand with ridges and shadows.



.

-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.