The Secret of Making High-Quality Art (in Blender and Everywhere)

[Applause] let's go so today we're going to be talking about the secret of making high quality art in blender and everywhere so but before we get started let me just briefly introduce myself to get it out of the way so my name is Gleb Alexandrov I have a wife a kid a cat a blog blender two point eight Tests built a blind guardian t-shirt a useless ello account a useful YouTube account some fancy renders some renders that suck the panic monster to help me fight procrastination and a caffeine addiction so why do some renders suck and others don't or how should they put it why do some renders get in the editor speak on art station receive lots of love our words stuff like that and others even from the same artist and up in a grey zone not bad but not great either I think most people in this room have had this experience of creating something in blender say concept arts are a 3d model for game or just a render and then realizing that something about it looks terribly off it looks off but you can't put your finger on what exactly is wrong about it so you go to blender artists or or maybe you go to Facebook and you ask your Facebook friends hey what's wrong with my render everybody really adds to your confusion you get a bunch of mutually exclusive comments like add some interest details or keep it minimal remove something out of it or maybe it's about colors or check your references or my favorite improve composition thank you but what exactly so today I want to talk about one particular theory in composition that in my opinion has a great potential for explaining many many things and for preventing such situations when you render obviously suck but you don't know what to do and where to start so this is kind of a secret of making high quality art that is being used I believe by successful artists from Blizzard DreamWorks Industrial Light and Magic Pixar by artists like Tour freak Vitaly boo Gaurav Neil Blevins many many others by blender artists of course like Daniel by stead master G on me so in fact all these renders that you see behind me have this thing in common but before we begin talking about what the heck is this thing let me just say a it's not a prescribed mathematical method be it works see how many of you guys have heard about Neil Blevins by show of hands one two just two people all right how many of you guys haven't heard about Neil Diamond's the rest of you especially for those of you who haven't heard about Neil Neil is a professional 3d artist who specializes in robots alien creatures sci-fi landscape stuff like that now working as a digital artist for Pixar Animation Studios Neil has a blog Neil Blevins comm where he is posting extremely useful tutorials on composition on 3ds max on many things so a couple of years ago I stumbled across one of his tutorials that was called primary secondary tertiary shapes and the main thought of this tutorial was that if your image has a nice distribution of big medium and small shapes the resulting image will tend to be more pleasing to the eye and once I read this tutorial and once so these diagrams of the right and the wrong distribution of big medium small shapes inside the composition I thought well that's great I also love simplifying stuff like that like arrange your big medium shapes inside the composition like this you win arrange it like this you lose and I wanted to kind of crash test this theory that Neil has planted into my head so I took a bunch of top-rated works from CGHUB actually these are from our session back then it was CGHUB one of the most popular online galleries like pornhub for CG artists if you know what I mean so I took a bunch of top-rated works and I started painting big medium small shapes with red blue yellow like this and after some painting I started to realize that the distribution of shapes in all these images really looks similar it really looks like what neil has described in his tutorial and I think that's very important thing that helps me just in my work and had an incredibly positive influence on how I tend to the things but before we ask what the heck let's try to make sense of it so definitions first primary shapes are your big shapes it's a kind of a shape that you see if you squint at an image as soon as you blur your eye it's already reads secondary shapes are your smaller shapes that break up or sit on top of the primary shapes tertiary shapes are again even smaller details successful images tend to have all these three levels in place and they are balanced against each other big shapes are needed because they help to organize all other shapes small shapes are needed because of many reasons one which is pure and desire to explore the image and obviously secondary shapes are needed to give a transition between big and small miss one level things go haywire all bad renders in the world have this sin of breaking a balance say whether it's a wall a huge wall that is covered with tiny tiny bricks without any middle ground or whether it's a robot which lacks just intricate details the successful renders on the other hand tend to have all these three levels in place and they fall into a certain kind of balance and we find images pleasing that fall into certain kind of balance just like we find music pleasing that has all frequencies represented imagine your favorite song now imagine the wave form of it like try to cut off the high frequencies and it will sound muffled and if you cut off the bus it will sound teeny you can't crank up or cut off a certain band of frequency without ruining the sound and appeal InDesign is no different have big medium small shapes have them in a certain balance but then the natural question arises is there any way to determine the right size for the shapes say a certain proportion golden ratio the answer would be yes and no I tried to calculate using these renders for example but I didn't manage to find out for sure is if there is any kind of common proportion manifesting itself through all these images or not because obviously artists tend to choose different proportions based on many things on style on the scale on personal preference on the time of the day but that being said I still see some kind of ratio in play to me the ratio between big medium small shapes in this bunch of renders that they have cherry Peaks from art station looks something like 1 to 5 - 1 to 10 so when I say medium I actually mean 5 to 10 times smaller than the B and when I say small a actually mean 5 to 10 times smaller than the medium but don't take it too seriously it's not some divine proportion of awesome CG arts or something like that hey at least we know that it's a range of sizes rather than some fixed size so it's very important to have variety to the sizes of shapes in each three categories and what's really crucial is how you distribute these shapes inside your composition straight-ahead rhythm gets boring very quickly if you take a look at these two diagrams you will notice that the right distribution is much more natural and kind of unpredictable as the result the eye stays in the image for a longer time they I have some things to explore the eye doesn't get bored by this repeating pattern of small shapes because once the eye recognizes the pattern and solves the mystery its case closed I mean who still keeps looking for their shoes once they found them that would be stupid so I think the best way to talk about it is to take a look at some more examples here you can see the primary shape broken down into three rather boring slabs and also you can see the abundance of small shapes spread out kind of uniformly across this image and the uniform distribution like this is really uncomfortable to look at it doesn't give the eye any spot to rest and it doesn't have enough variety to keep us looking I wonder if you agree with me but this distribution of shapes looks much much more enjoyable because now we don't see this horrible block of small shapes spread out in the uniform pattern lots of things is going on here we see some areas of high-frequency detail some areas with practically no details medium shapes different look in medium shapes pattern breakers and it's really adds dynamics it adds visual interest successful images tend to have a somewhat unpredictable distribution of shapes with just enough surprise to keep us watching whether it's a substance material or a concept art if you allow me yet another musical metaphor imagine you have to choose between two drum tracks the first one being and the second one I bet you would choose the one with more groove because who doesn't have a good funky beat so so far we have big medium small shapes distributed in a somewhat unpredictable way the next thing we have to master is an empty space it's very important I think to have an empty space in your distribution of shapes because it gives the actual features more space to breathe it allows them to speak more loudly if all areas of your by the way this is amazing render by master Jian I love it and if all areas of your image have an equal amount of energy you're doing it wrong you just have to balance the areas of visual detail with the areas of visual rest otherwise you will create something like this dinah board from the last night and the age of extinction total rubbish here's musical metaphor number three if we guys imagine an orchestra now imagine all musicians of this Orchestra started playing at once with maximum loudness this would sound just like this dinah board if you know what I mean you just have to balance areas of detail with the areas of rest if I had to create a transformer I would have definitely included some empty space inside the composition just to make sure that I avoid this Dinobot effect great renders always have some negative space to balance the areas of density some renders have lots of negative space just like this button a one-bite or Frank so let's imagine we have followed through all the steps of this theory and we got big medium small shapes with the variety to the size of shapes in each three categories we have a somewhat unpredictable distribution we balance the areas of details with the areas of rest the benefit of doing all of this is having clumps or groups of shapes emerging here and there and that's the fourth and final hallmark of high quality art for today there is a universal agreement on both ends of the spectrum from pixel art nerds to photographers that a having points of interests is good for your composition and B it's better to have three five seven nine objects rather than lots of objects it's just a better way of organizing this space and guiding the viewers eye through the composition and if you pretty much followed through all the steps of this tutorial you will get this as a bonus as Synnex the youtube design genius points out our visual system enjoys grouping objects together into larger more managed objects so clumping can make any much more brain friendly hence makes it more aesthetically pleasing needless to say if you now take a look at all this editors picks you will see these clumps or groups of shapes everywhere and I can go through this endlessly just just check it out this so these are very important things to consider when you're basically making an image let's once again recap them first have big medium small shapes have a variety to the sizes of shapes in each three categories make sure that the distribution of shapes inside the composition is somewhat unpredictable and chaotic balance the areas of details with the areas of rest and allow these clumps or groups of shapes to flourish and of course the rules like this are just guidelines much like every other rule in design and composition and it's up to you as a 3d artist to determine what's right or wrong for the composition but the next time you will have this question don't immediately go to Facebook just think about big medium small shapes and their distribution thank you [Applause]

Channel: Blender

Views: 62,436

Rating: 4.966507 out of 5

Keywords: blender, conference

Id: qMH_J_vcoqE

Length: 17min 2sec (1022 seconds)

Published: Wed Nov 01 2017