|
|
[ 1 ] sprice:
What's this logo? |
|
[ 2 ] cgroom:
Is this line necessary? If you want to express 3 dimensionality on a hemisphere object, adding a reflection-triangle may do the trick. |
|
[ 3 ] cgroom:
What's the upper line? |
|
[ 4 ] tasha:
Actually, I'm guessing that the helmet has some ridges molded into it - probably provides some structural integrity - if the helmet was perfectly smooth, it would be more prone to cracking and breaking, 'cuz their (oops, _they're_ *embarassed, has _never_ made that mistake!*) plastic. |
|
[ 5 ] tasha:
Visor? It seems like it should be a little bigger than that, perspective notwithstanding. |
|
[ 6 ] cfanjul:
i have to say that these wheels are an impressive creation... did you render them in 3D first, it just fake it?
as for computer art, i agree that a sense of composition is important, but there is somehow a disconnect between "thinking creatively" and having the manual dexterity and forethought (for one thing) to pull of some "traditional" media, ie. painting. i took an AP Art Studio course, and when asked to paint a self portrait, i drew a keith haring version in photoshop, projected it onto canvas, and traced ;) "undo" is a wonderful thing. |
|
sprice:
Nice-- it looks like a miner's helmet on wheels. |
|
cgroom:
Swweeeet! I love the motion and cuteness of this icon. It says "very solid fast robot" to me. The outwart tilt of the wheels is a good touch! |
|
tom:
Thanks for the comments, guys. I felt like had a little trouble bringing out the helmet shape. The shape of the front is standard for modern mining helmets--it defines a flat area where you clip on the headlamp. Scott: the logo is the logo for the Robotics Institute, which looks like it was designed in the late 70s. Since the RI was started back then, this may be the case. |
|
tasha:
Hey Tom, do you do all of your drawing right into the graphics program, or do you do a little ol' fashion' pencil and paper first? |
|
tom:
For this one, it was all on the computer: just lines, circles, and Bezier curves.
Spring 2001: Professor R. Peroncini of the Istituto d'Arte "Paolo Toschi" in Parma explains to his class that you have to be able to do design by traditional means before you can do it on a computer. I would have disagreed with him but for two reasons: it would have been extremely rude, and anyway I was pretending I knew less Italian than I did so he would give me less work. I still think this opinion is entirely false.
Having said that, I've wanted to sketch sometimes, but there's never a scanner handy. |
|
tasha:
Well, what does he mean by "traditional means?" If, in one sense, he means that one should have some, even intuitive, understanding of composition and aesthetics in order to be successful with computer graphics, then I would agree with that. I've seen baaad things happen, you know ; ] ? But, I would say that you shouldn't have to go through years of graph paper and drafting tables before you can set foot in the CAD class. |
|
tom:
By "traditional means," I'm pretty sure he meant that you had to be able to do design on real life paper before you could do it well in Photoshop or whatever. The idea that you need to understand fundamental design principles first may be true (myself, I'm really just winging it), but then why single out the computer? It would be just as true of paper. I'm pretty sure he meant "no pencil skills == no computer design talent". He was speaking Italian, of course, but I'm almost certain I understood him.
Chris: to answer your question, nope, no tracing, no rendering! I took a fat circle, added knobs, perspective-transformed it, then drew out the treads. For me, the things that really make computer design fantastic are: undo, Bezier curves, and transforms. Yeah, though, I agree that it takes skill of a different sort to make things work in real media, and I wish I had it. |
| Add comment |
|
|
