DVDizzy Forum

I know just what this thread needs.....more big eyes



Enigmawing, put a wig on it and a pink dress and its Rapunzel

enigmawing wrote:

LOVE IT! INFINITE A+!

Thanks guys!

Siren wrote:Enigmawing, put a wig on it and a pink dress and its Rapunzel

Uh . . . BEHOLD! The newest pic of Rapunzel!



How's that for a likeness?

In all honesty, somebody hold me . . . I'm scared.

...

...

... Seriously, enigmawing, you should be working at Disney. Your clipart > Disney's clipart.

For real .

And Siren LOL!!!!

Reminds me of this little gem...
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sj0VnoZAGvE&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sj0VnoZAGvE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Engima, that drawing is beautiful!! (And I like how you slipped the Rapunzel logo in there!) Are you involved in art as a career? Or just as a hobby?


And Divinity. I feel like you are being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. Did I ever say that the fact that angle of the arms are different was a "colossal difference?" No. I was simply proving a point because you said that you "disagreed" with me, when there is no agreeing or disagreeing on my point. There is only right and wrong. And I was simply showing you that.


Since your argument about robster's example is that the picture of hiccup is simply just the model, and has not been superimposed on a book cover... Then here is a 3D, rendered image that has been used on a book cover... just for your own comparison. Do they look of the same quality to you (Rapunzel and Shrek)? Both 3D, CG, rendered, final images?



I don't understand how you can be so persistent and say "it's just SO obvious" that it's 3D... when not one person is in agreement with you.

pap64 wrote:... Seriously, enigmawing, you should be working at Disney. Your clipart > Disney's clipart.

For real .

Thanks, you really flatter me. I still want to add a few finishing touches before I'm done with the "real" version. I'd gotten so much practice on editing the watermarks out of the clip art that I wanted to try this type of shading on one of my own, lol.

SWillie! wrote:Engima, that drawing is beautiful!! (And I like how you slipped the Rapunzel logo in there!) Are you involved in art as a career? Or just as a hobby?

Thank you so much! While I do make a little money on the side with it, art is pretty much just a hobby for me.

art is pretty much just a hobby for me.

Me too.

enigmawing wrote:

she looks like a total slut here by the way.

Polizzi wrote:

art is pretty much just a hobby for me.

Me too.

SWillie! wrote:

Now, I know this adds nothing to this discussion, but I had that book! I remember I read it before Shrek 2 came out and I had no idea who this "Puss in Boots" character was.

Sorry, double post. The submit button is being glitchy. I hate it when that happens.

NOW we finally know where Disney got the concept for Tangled. Makes so much sense now!

Polizzi wrote:

art is pretty much just a hobby for me.

Me too.

We know it's a hobby for you. No way would yours be considered professional. Enigma at least has good enough skills to question if she's an artist by job....

sotiris2006 wrote:

FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,FAP,

Love the image Enigma!

Divinity, please note that in a previous post I emphasized that I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm not in any way trying to sound condescending or aloof, but I'm seriously flabbergasted that anyone would still insist these two images look exactly alike except for the lighting.



My whole point of posting this comparison the first time around was to illustrate that the above "pink" image was a traditional drawing based on the "blue" CG image. I did read your one post thoroughly, but apparently there were some misunderstandings. I thought you were trying to emphasize that you hadn't seen any CG film clip-art that either hadn't been extremely stylized (A) or taken directly from the CG models (B), so that was one of the ways you were justifying why the Tangled clip-art had to be CG. Which is why I showed you examples like the various book covers (C), which were the closest examples I could find that proved they sometimes produce hand-drawn illustrations that resemble the films more closely than the stylized work (like what I believe they're doing with Tangled right now).



My bad. And I wasn't offended by the "Jesus" comment , it was more that I didn't understand why you were acting so exasperated. If you have a different opinion, that's fine, but there's no real need to snap at anyone over a misunderstanding.

While I only have a basic understanding of 3D model animation and rendering, it's easy enough to recognize in most cases. I can say I've personally had experience in traditional and digital illustration, and I'm 100% certain that the pink image is a hand-drawn illustration, most likely colored digitally in a program like Photoshop or Corel Painter. While the coloring and shading definitely give the form dimension, the style of it simply doesn't match the way CG gives dimension. CG lighting, whether it be soft or harsh, is precisely calculated by the computer. "Lighting" and shading done by hand (even within a computer program) is typically much more intuitive and has a different feel. If it's the hair that's telling you it's CG, keep in mind that a realistic texture like that can easily be Photoshopped into a hand-drawn illustration.

I won't argue that the two images aren't similar, in fact I wouldn't doubt that whoever illustrated the pink image initially traced over the CG as a starting point and took some liberties to make the figure appear more interesting. And if you're arguing they are structurally the same despite any minor differences, they simply aren't. The waist and chest areas are especially different, not to mention the placement of the shoulders and arms. Interestingly enough, the head, neck, and one of the hips are pretty much the same. If we take a moment to trace each image we'll get a clearer view of this. The blue tracing is actually a pretty stiff, weak-looking "drawing," and IMO the clip-art has made a better adaptation of the pose:



Click here for a simple animated loop of how the outlines differ.

One more comparison between the clip art and a CG image before I'm done with the subject (one which I'm surprised no one has posted before):



Obviously the same character, and the artist of the first image was going for the look of the CG when they drew and colored it (shading and overall style), but it's slightly simplified. If nothing else, look at the difference in the dress between the two pics, the left one doesn't have the same reflective quality as the right and the texture is very different, and the detail of the right is more precise. This can't be blamed on the size and quality of the pics, even if you were to blur and distort the right image to a certain extent you'd still be able to see it has more detail.

Anyway, I'm not sure why anyone's getting worked up over all this.

* * *

An interesting note on the name change, I've recently had a few people ask me if Disney couldn't get the rights to the name Rapunzel, and if they actually changed the character's name to Tangled along with the movie title. Talk about Disney confusing the general public! If they really wanted to attract more boys, they should have gone in the direction of the demotivational that sotiris posted.

PatrickvD wrote:she looks like a total slut here by the way.

So I injected my usual sluttiness? Hmm. I should trademark that.

ajmrowland wrote:Love the image Enigma!

Thanks! I actually went ahead and posted the "regular" version at dA; let's hope I don't have any issues with the mods for the time being.

Wow Enigma! Now that's what I call a solid argument right there. I thought about doing the outlines like that when I posted mine, but then I was lazy and just did the negative space deal. I'm glad you went all out.


No one can argue against it noowwww muahhhhahahaha

I would reply again...but I honestly don't care enough about this movie to argue about it anymore. I still haven't changed my opinion, and it doesn't matter if noone agrees with me.

enigmawing wrote:Anyway, I'm not sure why anyone's getting worked up over all this.

It wasn't even the fact that people didn't agree with me that was making me angry, it's the way people were responding. I don't need the arrogance or the condescension. But that seems to be fastly becoming the norm here.

Also, you said something about the hair, and that's not why I felt it was 3D, though it is textured.

SWillie! wrote:I don't understand how you can be so persistent and say "it's just SO obvious" that it's 3D... when not one person is in agreement with you.

Guess you missed the joke.

Besides, I don't need people to agree with me to feel better.

I feel like you are being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

You know, I suppose I'll post a poll when I want to know people's opinions of me. Because what you think is definitely on my list of priorities.

*flamboyantly departs for the sake of other posters who are annoyed with me*

I apparently did miss the joke... I went back and read our original post again, and I still don't see a joke

And I wasn't trying to shove my opinion down your throat or anything... saying you're being stubborn... I was just commenting on how you weren't giving up even though we've taken the time the try and show you why it is that you're wrong multiple times.

My opinion of you, on the other hand (even though you haven't asked for it) is that you are most certainly one of the more respectable members here, as you are able to actually talk intelligently about something with someone, instead of just jumping to being angry or whatever. I believe I've told you that before in another thread.

We're not trying to be condescending (at least I'm not)... we're just trying to show you the light.

Okay, sorry to reply this, but what makes people think that Rapunzel is a slut, seriously? Don't you think that is kind of harsh to say something bad to Rapunzel, or maybe it is the art that bothers you? The art of Rapunzel does not bother me, it looks great, but I would not consider her as a slut, unless Disney wanted Rapunzel to be a slut in the movie, but I would not count on it. Sorry to say this to you Disney fans, that is no way to speak to a lady, especially Rapunzel. True that the art cover needs some work, but I am sure that it will be better in the movie than on merchandise. By the way, here's another merchandise that I found online, but the back side was never changed.