You can watch only my part of the interview with PLuGHiTz Live!, if you prefer.
I guess I just needed to be patient. It's pretty cool that they separate out the different interviews.
I share exclusive details about my current indie game project, plus you can learn more about the awesome, local Pinellas Comic and Maker Con!
My part of the interview is about 2hrs and 8min in, but this interview has the only details of my current game project.
The Legacy Quest Demo is now available and all resources are now provided with a Commercial Use License!
See the video showing the changes from 2011:
Faber-Castell Polychromos are about twice as expensive as Prismacolor Premier. I took the leap to see if the cost of these colored pencils are worth it.
I've been pretty happy with my Prismacolor pencils for quite a while. It's really enjoyable to grab someone's box of RoseArt or Crayola colored pencils, lay down some color swatches, and then put down some Prismacolor swatches right next to them. It's immediately obvious why the Prismacolor pencils cost 4 to 5 times as much, and I wouldn't hesitate to say they're worth it.
I was excited to receive my first set of Faber-Castell Polychromos recently. I've seen a lot of reviews recommending these pencils and I was ready to see what all the praise was about. My Prismacolors come in a tin, but the lid is a separate piece and it's occasionally annoying to pop off. I much prefer the tin compared to the boxes RoseArt and Crayola come in. That said, I much prefer the Faber-Castell tin to the Prismacolor. It is sleek, beautiful, and well designed. It has an attached lid that keeps the pencils secure but also opens easily, with a quick flip of the thumb. In practice, the only thing I prefer about the Prismacolor tin is that the detached lid allows me to place it under the tin, so it takes up less space.
Who cares about the tins?! Yeah, you could keep them in a cup or bin, no big deal. I just geek out over sweet tins. Presentation is everything, right? Sometimes. In this case, performance is everything. After all, you're not presenting the tin when you sell your artwork. So, unlike putting down a swatch of Prismacolor next to a swatch of Crayola, the performance difference is here is kind of subtle. There's definitely a smoother, more consistent application of color in the Polychromos over the Prismacolor, it's just a bit subtle. The feel of the Polychromos as you lay down color is a little more buttery than the Prismacolor, whereas the Prismacolor is a little more scratchy. You can hear it and feel it, but again, it's subtle.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Nothing is Original", or, "Steal Like an Artist"? Well, let me tell you something extremely important. Both of those statements are nonsense!
I mean, what a horribly contrived message! Steal like an artist? I'm guessing this is meant to be partially humorous and partially a metaphor. Artists don't steal because their inspiration comes from existing ideas, that's just not what steal means. Just because I've seen a cat and a fish, it doesn't mean I stole the idea of the catfish. That's absurd. As absurd as saying I stole the idea of the sun by drawing a sunny day, or even by drawing the Sun.
Attempting to alter the context and meaning of "steal" causes confusion, and sends a less than ideal message to people. It's not okay to steal, and moreover, being inspired by something doesn't make you a thief. Also, there is no verifiable evidence that Picasso said, "Good artists copy, but great artists steal". Sorry, Jobs, I'm also still not an Apple fan. In actuality, versions of this quote have been manipulated and contorted over time, with the earliest quote being more along the lines that imitation is worthy of praise, but stealing/copying is unworthy of praise. And that wasn't attributed to Picasso.
Fan art can be a real trigger topic for some people and it seems blatantly confusing for most. I want to talk briefly about it.
When you find someone contesting their right to distribute and/or sell fan art, it usually comes from a place of ignorance, naiveness, idealism, or nonchalance about copyright law.
When I confront someone about it, the response is almost always combative and I think there's a reason for that. No one likes to be confronted about doing something wrong, especially if they don't think they are doing anything wrong.
Before I give you the simple explanation of everything you need to know about fan art, I want to make one thing clear; I don't have a problem with fan art. There's nothing inherently wrong with fan art. However, that notion seems to be warped and manipulated by either a lack of concern or a lack of knowledge for copyright law. So, it's time to set the record straight.
A lot of people, using intellectual property they don't own, jump to Fair Use as a defense for copyright infringement. Here's why that's a bad idea.
To be fair, most people only use parts of Fair Use as their defense. Those people are caught off guard the most when they are reported, because they didn't take all factors of Fair Use into consideration. Many people also like to use Fair Use as a defense without considering the larger, more important context of copyright law as a whole. When this happens, you're not a victim of abuse by a big, greedy corporation. You're a victim of ignorance, and as we all know, ignorance is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. If you want to use, or create, copyrighted materials, it's your responsibility to understand copyright law.
I've, unfortunately, stumbled on this YouTube channel I've grown to utterly despise. The ironically named, Channel Awesome.
I won't be including links because I don't believe they deserve any traffic. Channel Awesome (the Nostalgia Critic) want to try and convince you that media companies are tyrants or villains for defending their intellectual property. This channel blatantly infringes on copyright by distributing content they have no rights to, and then, they try to monetize their stolen content. They accuse studios of "stealing their monetization" when a copyright claim is submitted against them.
In short, they are manipulative criminals, and they want to the use legitimate abuse of YouTube's reporting system as platform to call you to action for their goals. They want to make it harder for copyright holders to protect their copyrighted work and easier for them to profit from the use of copyrighted materials. Fight for the Future has defended the internet on worthy causes before, but the association these two share doesn't make sense to me. This channel is not interested in protecting your freedoms or rights, and are clearly set against true original content creators who deserve the right to protect their intelelctual property. I think it sends a good message to avoid supporting them in any way. Short and sweet, have a good day.
OpenToonz is ugly and difficult to use, two big detractors for drawing hopeful new animators.
A lot of the hype around OpenToonz was it's connection to Studio Ghibli. They aren't the only ones using Toonz products, but there aren't many studios using Toonz, and Toonz products are not exactly an industry standard. Well, they're not an industry standard. And that kind of says it all. The software that you could pay for, advertised as competitively priced, has not become an industry standard. Though, it's listed without a price, and most things listed without a price are rarely competitively priced. So, what can you really expect from the stripped down free version of the software that never became an industry standard?
The idea that OpenToonz will become a global standard for 2D animation is more fantastical than anything you'll create with it.
As someone experienced in paper animation, you might see OpenToonz as an amazing offering. Sure it's ugly and far from user friendly, but it probably offers everything you need, at no cost. However, most of the open source software I've seen falls under the same two categories, ugly and not user friendly. Eventually, and I mean after a decade or two, it improves to the level where it can be appealing because it's free. Usually, I'd just rather pay the subscription price or retail cost for a better made software. Yes, it does basically all the same stuff, but it looks better and it's easier to use. Two really important factors when it comes to software I need to become proficient in, and software I have to look at for hours at a time, every day.
I don't have to pay anything extra and I have a number of options, better looking and more user friendly than OpenToonz. More importantly, all better geared for what I want to do, which is paperless animation. OpenToonz has nothing to make me invested in utilizing it for my projects. Even if I wanted to, OpenToonz has another major pitfall - horrible documentation. For the small percentage of the world that wants to animate and speaks Japanese, no problem. However, I don't speak Japanese, and there is no English documentation for the software, and no English video tutorials.
Although, I'm a resourceful dude. I've had it a week now. I haven't been able to do much, but I was able to get things more organized. I was also able to get more comfortable drawing and manipulating frames, though the drawing and painting tools are atrocious. I even learned how to preview my animation, which I [sadly] saw as a great triumph in my time with the software. Even more sadly, when I finally felt comfortable and confident enough put something meaningful together, I was hit with the unexpected crashes plaguing most users. I don't really understand how a program this unfriendly to users, without documentation, and this unstable is suppose to become a global standard for animation. Since it's open source, it will probably be a decade or two before it competes with the current set of professional options on the market, and that's more time than I'm willing to give it.
Digital Arts Instructor