Let's Build Sand Castles!! p14

Boob fight, lovely i want more please..

chuylo

Than's outfit on page 54 ( <a href="http://goo.gl/DwZVMj" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/DwZVMj</a> ) revealed plenty of cleavage. Of course we've only seen tiny piece of it. As for the significance of the size of the Wicked Witch… Than IS Alexis opponent IRL thus it's only natural to portray her as Wicked Witch. Size of breasts could be a factor or not, I don't think we'll ever know.

Khimru

I don't have a tilt-shift camera, but since tilt-shift photos are similar to regular photos except for the focus issue you could simulate effect using simple perspective correction tool. I took the first picture Google gave me for the “people from above” and changed it. <a href="http://sta.sh/0p9ygc8snbr" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://sta.sh/0p9ygc8snbr</a> vs <a href="http://sta.sh/01e39qhjsisv" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://sta.sh/01e39qhjsisv</a> As you can see proportions of people look less distorted than on the original photo. And of course it's still easy to see that they are photographed from above. But yeah, I guess in the end of the day difference is not spectacular enough to talk so much about it. Sorry to waste your time.

Khimru

You are raising interesting question WRT brain capabilities. The main difference between “normal” picture and “tilt-shifted” picture is perspective perception. When you look on the top of a tall building from below using regular lens (including lens in your eyes) you get quite a distorted picture: elements which are far away from you look smaller and buildings may look like they are falling even if they are perfectly vertical. Similar thing happens when you look on the objects from above (I know that you know about that effect because you've replicated it on quite a few pictures). But if you know that buildings are, in fact, vertical then you can adjust the picture in your head and basically imagine picture similar to what tilt-shifted camera can capture. This mechanism is not perfect and can lead to strange problems with perception (e.g. “leaning tower illusion” <a href="http://goo.gl/q2wUqv" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/q2wUqv</a> ). Tilt-shifted camera “sees” things differently. Petronas Towers will NOT look like they'll converge when captured on tilt-shifted camera (when in reality this perception is quite strong not only when you look on the photo but also when you are there in person and “move your eyes over the entire structure”). And people will NOT look like they have pumpkins instead of heads and tiny limbs somewhere below when captured from above. In fact they will look suprisingly “normal” (as long as you don't look on the background) Of course if you have a regular photo then you can easily “correct” the distortion and convert regular picture to what tilt-shifted camera observes (except for in-focus/out-of-focus thing), it's simple geometry, after all. Not so easy to do the same with picture, though (they may look very realistic but even so they rarely are gemetrically correct).

Khimru

I understand the improvement for focus, but the church example isn't really very good. The technique is really picture stitching, at least from the caption. It's the same thing you'd do if you took a series of pictures of the horizon from a peak. You can then stitch and "correct" for the horizon curvature to get a full panorama. The movable lens really just makes this perhaps easier? Unlike a camera, people's eyes move naturally over an object or scene. For example, the church-- you don't stand there with your eyes fixed on whatever little bit you can see at once. You move your eyes over the entire structure and your brain can "stitch" all those views together. The same thing is done when you draw, it's a static representation of an entire scene in or out of focus as perceived standing there looking. To get the same effect in photography requires what? A bunch of specialty lenses and equipment? That's precisely what I do not consider when drawing.

zdemian

Hell, yeah. Kind of forgot to say that, but I guess it needs to be said. This piece is truly AMAZING. It's amazing enough to have this discussion! And I'm not joking. Most comicses out there either use simple and boring POV (as in: camera is fixed at the same position and is never moved around) or, if they try to pull some non-trivial perspective, fail so spectacularly that it literally makes no sense to even try to discuss multitude of mistakes. That one frame with one relatively small and benign mistake begat such a lively discussion exactly because it's uncommon. And if you'll recall that most frames on this page either display characters in some unusual stance or they are shown from some non-trivial POV… frankly I'm surprised that we have just one tiny mistake to talk about and not dozens of them.

Khimru

You are kind of right: it's technically hard to achieve such a huge range of view. In most cases tilt of less than 10 degrees is used, not 50 or 80 degrees. But the gist of the idea could be seen even with limited range. You can see that on pictures of church at the end of this article: <a href="http://goo.gl/e2d5Fl" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/e2d5Fl</a> . Lowest picture is what human could see, but the next one is higher and third one is even higher—yet all are done in position where camera “looks” in the exact same direction. In lowest picture “center of the view” is in the center of the image, on the second picture it's on the border of the image, in third one it's not in image at all—it's below it. You can continue to move lens (without moving the body of camera!) which will move picture further and further from “center of the view”. PC tutorial ( goo.gl/6KYAag ) talks about more or less the same effect: “If you want to stand inches from the corner of the wall and capture the entire wall in focus, a normal lens may not be able to do the job because the aperture can't get small enough. But, the problem can be solved if the film or lens plane remains parallel to the wall, even though the camera itself might not be. Thus, by tilting the lens, you can adjust the plane of focus so that the entire length of the wall is in focus without moving the camera”. When you stand “inches from the corner of the wall” and “capture the entire wall in focus” the effect is more-or-less the same as when you 50 feet in the air, looking straight ahead and still see things almost under your feet.

Khimru

I didn't mean to distract us from the fact that this piece is AMAZING. Love seeing how truly huge they both are in these frames and how Than is using her thousands of pounds of flesh as a weapon. I imagine she only needed to lean forwards it the rest of her body and she'd find a nice pillow to land on :)

Bronn

zdemian

I must be looking at the wrong pictures, since none that google's brought up or in the articles you linked show that range of view. From what I gather, the tilt and shift simply distorts the incoming light in such a way that it offsets the perspective. The actual visible range doesn't change much at all. Bending like you're talking about would be like using a fish-eye lens or taking panoramas.

zdemian

“It harkens to everyone's experience using their eyes”—indeed. But tilt–shift photography deal with experience which you could not experience using your eyes! “I can just draw from a vantage point 50 feet in the air if I so desire”—sure, but that's not tilt-shift, that's just aerial photo. Tilt-shift is more like “My vantage point is 50 feet in the air AND I'm looking straight ahead AND I'm seeing thing almost directly under my feet”. Aquula and retina in human eye are rigidly connected thus it's just not possible. If you could overcome that limitation in your mind and imagine such picture anyway then sure, there are no need to talk about techniques and equipment.

Khimru

I think this is a matter of semantics to some degree. I don't imagine a 'photograph,' I imagine an image. A photograph is intrinsically limited by what can be done with photography. An image, and drawing by extension, can ignore/bend/cheat in certain ways that a photo can not. At the end of the day, though, if you're trying to represent things realistically, you need to adhere to a lot of the same restraints that are non-negotiable in photography-- because when you don't, things look "off." It harkens to everyone's experience using their eyes. So you can, in a similar way, talk about camera angles, lighting, and a lot of other stuff as in photography. What you don't need to talk about is specific equipment and technique. Like I don't need to use a tilt-shift camera, because I can just draw from a vantage point 50 feet in the air if I so desire. That's all I mean by not thinking in terms of taking a photograph.

zdemian

Ah, Ok. It's just… for me large part of your drawings appeal is that “completely unrealistic things are shown in realistic way” approach. Which basically makes it possible to talk about angles, camera positions and other such things. If you don't try to build (even subconsciously) “photograph” in your head then it'll not look realistic in the end. “I crop the foreground to show what I wanted to” message shows that you are doing that—at least to some degree. In the end decision is always yours and yours alone: we could discuss and suggest things here, but without someone in charge the end result will be awful. One of the fastest ways to destroy any project is to incorporate all the “helpful” suggestions. Caviar and ice cream both are tasty but their mix is not something you'll want to eat. Keep up the good work and don't try to please everyone—you could not do that anyway!

Khimru

I don't think in terms of "If I was taking a photograph, what technique would I use?" Drawing naturally has no restrictions on equipment or technique associated with photography. I try as best I can to show what I want to show. It's composition and perspective and all the other elements that go into it. Tilt-shift corrects perspective for when you can't place a camera where you want-- i.e. taking a picture of a tall structure from ground level. I have no such restriction, I can place a camera wherever I like. You can find other examples in the comic where the camera would realistically be inside Than's or Alexis breasts, but I crop the foreground to show what I wanted to. I did basically the same thing here, but it's noticeable because she then appears completely naked. Also, the use of something like tilt-shift is a function of intent. If you wanted a view of an entire building, for example, a housing ad, then it's desirable to use. If you're taking a photo emphasizing that it's a tall building, you want natural perspective, and using tilt-shift would be undesirable.

zdemian

Actually, it looks like tilt-shift-photograpy style ( <a href="http://goo.gl/b30OvV" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/b30OvV</a> ) pictures could be a solution for the frontal shots of Than and Post-Oz Alexis. I mean: there are some pictures where we see them from the front (e.g. pages 74-75 of LBSM) which should be impossible because their boobs will be in the way, but if we'll assume that camera is placed on top of their boobs and uses tilt-shift lens then such shots are quite possible. And if background (or background characters) are visible then you could even gauge Alexis/Than size from the background (or background characters) position. When camera is placed at the operator's head level all characters (both background and foreground) have their heads and necks at about the same level, but if shift-tilt camera is used as noted above then background characters will be shifted up (only about 10-15 feet behind Alexis/Than will be visible because at that distance we'll see the floor). Somewhat unusual position and could be hard to pull off, but hey, you've already done something like this in the second frame of 12th page of LBSC (perhaps subconsciously?).

Khimru

Human eye could not see picture like this, but it does not mean that it's impossible to portray that. Camera could actually capture such picture if you'll use shift lenses ( <a href="http://goo.gl/LrCOI1" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/LrCOI1</a> ). Of course you could not capture objects which are directly above the Alexis but if they are just near… it's easy. The problem here is the same as with photos of skyscrapers and it was solved long ago ( see here <a href="http://goo.gl/6KYAag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/6KYAag</a> , e.g.).

Khimru

I wanted the up view angle so you can see the witch's silhouette above. Realistically you should be able to see Alexis' shirt framing it across the top, but it'd probably cut across her face and still wouldn't see the sky behind her. It's a bit of a mistake with the angle, which I corrected with some "artistic liberty." No need to read too much into it.

zdemian

This will be a good explanation except for one problem: Alexis outfit. It's extremely conservative and only tiny piece of cleavage peeks from the undershirt. Certainly not enough to create such effect.

Khimru

It looks to me more like the only angle to see overhead is an in the cleavage shot, so naturally you would see a tit canyon effect making it seem like she's naked

Shadowglytch

now that you mention it ^^

foducool

yeah but she must've used the broom to get up there in the first place XD

foducool

she seems to be in a free fall...

Bronn

Why is she naked all of a sudden in that frame where she says "Hope this doesn't take long"?

Bronn

Titquake

Chumlee99

Boob fight!

Bronn

that's some sturdy broom

foducool

Uh-oh. Alexis dreams starts to diverge from the canonical plot. Not sure if we'll even see the Cowardly Lion now…

Khimru

This just got amazing.

Filosobear