posted 11-20-2001 03:28 PM               

http://amazingmontage.tripod.com/trespassers/

I'm curious what people think of this (as I'm sure is Zabel). It's a good story, though I think Joe's writing talents are stronger in comics than in prose, and it's awfully pretty to look at. You can tell an enormous amount of work went into creating the artwork - check out the multiple mirror scene in the ladies' room, for instance - but I have some misgivings about Joe's choice to use a software called Poser rather than his own drawings. (I must hasten to add that it's not properly a comic book but rather an online novel with color illustrations. But I think my arguments to follow will still apply.)

Poser, for those of you who might not know, (and it looks to me that it's what Joe used; please correct me if I'm wrong) is an inexpensive and clever little program used for rendering 3D human figures. As I understand it, it's mostly intended as an introduction to higher-powered 3D software and for things like computer-based games or 3D comics. I grabbed a copy of Poser myself awhile back as a lark, and though I enjoyed playing around with it I couldn't see much use in it for my own professional purposes (I'm a commercial graphics artist). It does come in handy as a figure drawing guide; certainly it's more effective than those little wooden puppet dolls.

But as a comic-creating device, I think it leaves much to be desired. For one thing, no matter how hard one twists and pokes at a figure's anatomy (and it can be a tricky task depending on the intricacy of the pose), the figures invariably retain a stiff, mannequin-like quality. This is fine for game design - I think computer games with photographically perfect characters would ruin half the fun - but knowing that Zabel is more than adept at drawing expressive humans makes the work a tad disappointing, at least for me.
I think I would rather have seen Joe's own artwork rendered as computer art than the zonk-eyed Poser people. Another consideration is that the Poser people were designed by someone else at one time; therefore when Joe uses Poser he's technically making use of another artist's style and abilities, which would be fine (I guess) if he couldn't draw but I know he can. So I didn't enjoy the story as much as I wanted to.

I dunno if this is a new direction for Zabel, or if he's just expanding his palette, or if he's just goofing around. But I'd hate to see him give up ink 'n' paper for something which is cool-looking but ultimately cold.

posted 11-21-2001 11:38 AM               

Honestly, I didn't read the prose (I'll try to go back to do so when I find some time), but the images were fantastic. I'd love to see Joe do a comic this way.

dirk

posted 11-21-2001 02:23 PM               

I'll try to be back soon.

Joe's Poser work is very strong, I think. He's improved a lot since he first posted an experiment in the Creating Comics forum. Actually, I don't know of anyone doing online comics who is doing better Poser work than Joe.

Don't forget to check out his Comics Jam page too -- it's some very nice work.

posted 11-21-2001 03:16 PM               

JohnEWilliams; Seems to me that your problem is simply one of learned perceptions. Humans become accustomed to certain sets of perceptual norms and are very sensitive to deviations. To someone who has been looking only at photographs all their lives the drawings in comics look stiff and undetailed. Poser figures have a number of artistic advantages(for example, once you create a character you never have to create it again. A comic artist has to draw tha same character over and over with only minor variations in pose.) and disadvantages,(The figures tend to look stiff and unnatural.). But audiences are becoming accustomed to that and real artists (like Joe, for example) are stepping up to the plate.

posted 11-22-2001 12:19 AM               

"To someone who has been looking only at photographs all their lives the drawings in comics look stiff and undetailed."

That's an awfully generalized statement. It depends on what comic they're looking at, doesn't it? Kubert, Kane, Robbins, Canniff, Crane, Crumb, Jaime Hernandez... none of these artists' work could ever be perceived as "stiff and undetailed". Compare the best-looking Poser figure with any by one of those artists, and you're not gonna find any improvement.

posted 11-22-2001 03:55 AM            

And I think this work is VERY impressive and beautiful. Wow. But still, the eyes freak me out.

posted 11-22-2001 01:50 PM               

quote:

---

Ray, I don't think the software exists - or will exist - that can match the dexterity, the warmth and the sheer humanity of work created by hand. I'm not objecting to Joe's novel, I'm merely stating my preference.

---

It's not a question of software, it's who's behind the monitor clicking at the mouse. If a Pixar animator was to work on a comic using 3D as a medium, I don't doubt that you'd get something just as dynamic and exciting as the best drawn comic out there. Certainly they've proved with their films that they can create incredible performances, it's just that there aren't too many people that use 3D for artwork in the comic book kingdom, the lure of LA and making animated films or working on stills for advertising seems to be grabbing most of the best artists that do 3D really well.

I for one think Joe's stuff is great. I have never seen Poser characters taken to such a level before, and really fit in to the photographed surroundings. But to get back to the original post, using Poser itself does detract a bit from the art, just because we've all seen those same faces a thousand times before, and because those eye are so darn creepy.

posted 11-23-2001 05:05 PM               

Personally, I have no fondness for 3-D modelling--I like, as Williams said, the sensitivity, expression, and yes, human messiness of the ink line. There's something unique about the technique that I don't think should be lost just because of superior technology.(And unlike some these days, I PREFER drawing on the board to on a computer) But it's a perfectly valid technique. At the same time, I hand-draw all my work, but do use a computer for "enhancements"(corrections, greys, etc), and that works for what I'M going for. But my work doesn't depend on the machine; the machine just adds to the spectrum of what I can use, if I wish.

Adrian Belew of King Crimson once said, regarding the use of effects in his playing, that it's not how you make the sound that matters--it's what sound you end up with regardless of technique. If it's good, who cares how it was made? If it's bad, no machine or hand will make a difference.
What I'd like to see is more 3-D modelling types explore stuff like expressionism--"realism" is the lowest goal, I think. But there's nothing inherently invalid about computer-made art--Dave McKean settled that issue with CAGES, I think.

What Joe ended up with, BTW, here was quite good, in my opinion.

posted 11-24-2001 06:37 PM               

In most images, the figures' shoulders are perfectly parallel with the panel. And a lot of the shots are frontal and symmetrical. perhaps he should take some animation lessons, especially in staging, read the Illusuion of Life or at least do a search on the 12 principles of animation.

but, on the program's side, there isn't much difference between the proportions of characters or even body type.

posted 11-26-2001 07:36 AM               

(http://www.mazdak.com/)

For years I struggled to make figures that seemed lifelike in traditional media. Step by step I improved, until today, I can easily produce natural, appealing, "readable" characters at will. It wasn't easy.

Poser and 3D software began in the hands of software scientists and were popularized by geniuses among them with artistic talent. But so far we have only scratched the surface. What is required is artists who have worked with 3D until they command the same facility that I do with a pencil. Then they will produce convincing human figures. Joe Zabel and now many others are assaulting that mountain and making good progress. I suggest you cheer them on. It's only gonna get better from here.

To my mind one of the things holding back 3D
art is "technicalitis", many artists are struggling to maximize the software's ability to reproduce photographic realism. The medium's expressionistic capabilities have barely been scratched.

Incidentally Poser eyes often seem dry or dead because the ray tracer can't handle
"Eyeshine" A judicious touch or two with the
airbrush fixes that.

posted 12-23-2001 02:46 PM               

http://www.renderosity.com/hostedforums.ez?hostedforum_id=56

posted 12-23-2001 08:07 PM               

It's good to see some quality 3D comics popping up... to see the tools in the hands of artists (instead of people who thought software was a substitute for talent). This form is still in its infancy, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.

posted 12-24-2001 02:52 PM               

I bet Martin Hash's program would be better for this sort of thing right now, actually.

posted 12-25-2001 05:49 AM               

Much of my original art was hand-drawn and inked, but consistency was a hard-won effort for me. Poser takes the time-consuming chore out of the art. You design the characters (morphing allows an incredible degree of individuality - and you can adjust them so that not even the shoulders are "perfectly" horizontal); with free programs and downloads on the net, you can also create (paint) character texture-maps, and add 3-D props and hardware. By the way, I always go over the eyes and any other features that need to be re-worked.