20/08: DDNA PUBLICATIONS
Subject: Publications
Posted by: Kamal Siegel
This is a space where industry leaders publish articles and presentations on innovations, advances, discoveries and projects they are working on. Articles on a wide variety of topics are published with the goal of contributing to the overall growth of the digital art community.
Motion capture has been the only technical solution to date to deliver photo-real animation in a way that is quick to turn around and unmatched in quality. This is why movies like Avatar, The Lord of the Rings and many other top selling hits use motion capture as an integral part of their CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) pipeline.
While motion capture is cost-effective in its application, it can be expensive in its execution: Costs such as hiring the technical expertise needed to operate the equipment and manipulate the data, performers needed to enact the movement and the premium associated with it being such a niche market; all these increase costs which can often detract smaller studios; leaving them no choice but to resort to hand-keyed animation. But it is important to draw a clear distinction between motion capture and animation. Digital Double's philosophy is that motion capture is a form of performance capture and not animation. Much like a photograph is a means of capturing light but is not a painted illustration or drawing. They are both works of art but are each best suited for different applications. The former is best for capturing existing data while the latter is a distillation that takes place through the hands and observation of an artist.
All that said, Digital Double's markerless motion capture system allows us to provide mocap services at a significant lower rate than most studios. The lack of setup costs such as suits, markers or special callibrations needed to get the system up and running all contribute to Digital Double's remarkable affordable rates. We provide a one-size-fits-all solution that makes it even affordable to animation students whom might want to walk into the space at a moment's notice and capture themselves for anything from research and reference to usable animation data.
In terms of hand-keyed animation, Digital Double is especially rare as a motion capture studio because the artists that work here all have a background in traditional (hand-keyed) animation. This gives us significant leverage over other studios because we are able to pool from both sets of experience and find ways in which combining the two provides the kind of quality seen in the latest blockbuster hit movie "Avatar" by James Cameron where extensive motion capture was used and placed in the hands of animators. Gollum, from Lord of the Rings is another great example of this hybrid approach. Otherwise, motion capture by itself can be rather lifeless and disturbing (e.g. Tom Hanks in Polar Express).
In sum, motion capture is unrivaled in its ability to capture uncanny photo-realistic movement but only when that data is placed in the hands of an artist, do the characters come to life. One of our goals at Digital Double is to work toward the duplication and simulation of life through digital technologies and we believe motion capture is integral to that goal. In the coming months, stay tuned for us announcing our customized services in custom avatar creation enabling even "you" to get your very own avatar (a.k.a digital double).
While motion capture is cost-effective in its application, it can be expensive in its execution: Costs such as hiring the technical expertise needed to operate the equipment and manipulate the data, performers needed to enact the movement and the premium associated with it being such a niche market; all these increase costs which can often detract smaller studios; leaving them no choice but to resort to hand-keyed animation. But it is important to draw a clear distinction between motion capture and animation. Digital Double's philosophy is that motion capture is a form of performance capture and not animation. Much like a photograph is a means of capturing light but is not a painted illustration or drawing. They are both works of art but are each best suited for different applications. The former is best for capturing existing data while the latter is a distillation that takes place through the hands and observation of an artist.
All that said, Digital Double's markerless motion capture system allows us to provide mocap services at a significant lower rate than most studios. The lack of setup costs such as suits, markers or special callibrations needed to get the system up and running all contribute to Digital Double's remarkable affordable rates. We provide a one-size-fits-all solution that makes it even affordable to animation students whom might want to walk into the space at a moment's notice and capture themselves for anything from research and reference to usable animation data.
In terms of hand-keyed animation, Digital Double is especially rare as a motion capture studio because the artists that work here all have a background in traditional (hand-keyed) animation. This gives us significant leverage over other studios because we are able to pool from both sets of experience and find ways in which combining the two provides the kind of quality seen in the latest blockbuster hit movie "Avatar" by James Cameron where extensive motion capture was used and placed in the hands of animators. Gollum, from Lord of the Rings is another great example of this hybrid approach. Otherwise, motion capture by itself can be rather lifeless and disturbing (e.g. Tom Hanks in Polar Express).
In sum, motion capture is unrivaled in its ability to capture uncanny photo-realistic movement but only when that data is placed in the hands of an artist, do the characters come to life. One of our goals at Digital Double is to work toward the duplication and simulation of life through digital technologies and we believe motion capture is integral to that goal. In the coming months, stay tuned for us announcing our customized services in custom avatar creation enabling even "you" to get your very own avatar (a.k.a digital double).
Is mediocrity creeping into the new and tight budgeted short development cycles or are we seeing evidence of a new software development trend in designed obsolescence? Decide for yourself after reading this inspirational true story:
--------------------------------------
So I've been an Adobe Premiere user for a decade now. The program was good to me for many years and even though some things seemed to worsen as upgrades came out, I adapted and got used to the new versions.
Eventually I upgraded to their new line of Premieres (The Pro editions) which rendered the old ones obsolete. This was a huge crutch because all the projects I had created with versions prior would no longer open. But I kept going, dealt with the change and got used to working with the new Pro editions even though they were clunkier and harder to work with. But no matter. I was loyal to the brand and kept going.. limping.
Windows was going through its own set of upgrades at the time which fortunately didn't interfere with my work on Premiere but eventually when the time came to upgrade to windows Vista I was faced with a tough choice because as it turned out, "Premier Pro would not work on Windows Vista", said Adobe technical support lady in India. I'd have to buy into the new CS editions of the software. Ugh! I said no! I had gone far enough! And so I refused to use the software. Years went by and I missed my little video editing suite. Recently the need to use it, however, became too great. So I said. "fine!" I'll download the Premiere CS4 trial. So I did. And oh my, it had sunken too deep, and I was not willing to follow it down that rabbit whole. I couldn’t even export video!
Alas, I was distraught. Editless. Too many frames had been dropped from my timeline of life. And then.... then it happened. A random idea popped into my head. I rushed into my closet and dug deep, looking through stacks and piles of old CD's. I came across Madonna's Ray of Light album so I knew I was getting close. I kept looking and BAM, like a Photoshop lens flare, there it was: my install disk for Premier 6.5. The version I was using in school. I popped it into my brand new windows vista machine, installed it, all the while thinking to myself: "what the hell am I doing this for?"..... "installation complete". I rebooted for safe measure. I waited eagerly for the windows logo to appear but nothing would happen. Instead a mysterious black screen with random white text showed up with numbers randomly changing. (This was not a boot up screen). "OHhhhh Nooooooo!!!!! The Adobe Gods are punishing me for my sins. I should have never doubted thee". But no! I was not about to give up. A random instinct kicked in and told me to quickly unplug my peripherals and the black screen of death vanished. A moment elapsed and suddenly the synthesized windows vista trumpets kicked in and I saw the blessed primary colored logo. Phew!
"Ok. Here goes nothing", I thought to myself as I clicked:
- Start
- Programs
- Adobe Premiere 6.5
- ENTER
It started to boot up. Seemed to be taking it's time and then voila! It came up just like I remembered it, in all of its dated splendor. So I started to work with it and to my surprise it could do everything I've always wanted premier to do well, import videos, layer, mask and edit them. And surprisingly it didn't struggle at all with any of my recently generated .avi's or .mov's. The program was lightning fast too. I felt like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, dragging and dropping things left and right with no delay or hesitation.
I sat back with a smile on my face and a sigh of relief and thought: Adobe, I love thee.
--------------------------------------
So I've been an Adobe Premiere user for a decade now. The program was good to me for many years and even though some things seemed to worsen as upgrades came out, I adapted and got used to the new versions.
Eventually I upgraded to their new line of Premieres (The Pro editions) which rendered the old ones obsolete. This was a huge crutch because all the projects I had created with versions prior would no longer open. But I kept going, dealt with the change and got used to working with the new Pro editions even though they were clunkier and harder to work with. But no matter. I was loyal to the brand and kept going.. limping.
Windows was going through its own set of upgrades at the time which fortunately didn't interfere with my work on Premiere but eventually when the time came to upgrade to windows Vista I was faced with a tough choice because as it turned out, "Premier Pro would not work on Windows Vista", said Adobe technical support lady in India. I'd have to buy into the new CS editions of the software. Ugh! I said no! I had gone far enough! And so I refused to use the software. Years went by and I missed my little video editing suite. Recently the need to use it, however, became too great. So I said. "fine!" I'll download the Premiere CS4 trial. So I did. And oh my, it had sunken too deep, and I was not willing to follow it down that rabbit whole. I couldn’t even export video!
Alas, I was distraught. Editless. Too many frames had been dropped from my timeline of life. And then.... then it happened. A random idea popped into my head. I rushed into my closet and dug deep, looking through stacks and piles of old CD's. I came across Madonna's Ray of Light album so I knew I was getting close. I kept looking and BAM, like a Photoshop lens flare, there it was: my install disk for Premier 6.5. The version I was using in school. I popped it into my brand new windows vista machine, installed it, all the while thinking to myself: "what the hell am I doing this for?"..... "installation complete". I rebooted for safe measure. I waited eagerly for the windows logo to appear but nothing would happen. Instead a mysterious black screen with random white text showed up with numbers randomly changing. (This was not a boot up screen). "OHhhhh Nooooooo!!!!! The Adobe Gods are punishing me for my sins. I should have never doubted thee". But no! I was not about to give up. A random instinct kicked in and told me to quickly unplug my peripherals and the black screen of death vanished. A moment elapsed and suddenly the synthesized windows vista trumpets kicked in and I saw the blessed primary colored logo. Phew!
"Ok. Here goes nothing", I thought to myself as I clicked:
- Start
- Programs
- Adobe Premiere 6.5
- ENTER
It started to boot up. Seemed to be taking it's time and then voila! It came up just like I remembered it, in all of its dated splendor. So I started to work with it and to my surprise it could do everything I've always wanted premier to do well, import videos, layer, mask and edit them. And surprisingly it didn't struggle at all with any of my recently generated .avi's or .mov's. The program was lightning fast too. I felt like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, dragging and dropping things left and right with no delay or hesitation.
I sat back with a smile on my face and a sigh of relief and thought: Adobe, I love thee.
This is a question that haunts many animators and I think I'm in a good position to address it:
Will motion capture put animators out of work?
Absolutely not. If anything it will create more jobs and increase the scope of what animation studios can do. To me technology is just a tool, and the degree to which i measure the effectiveness of this tool is based entirely on its ability to make my job easier.
But if productivity is increased, doesn't that mean that less animators are needed to do the job?
Absolutely, yes!
Well, then why wouldn't this eliminate jobs?.
All you have to do is look at history. Think back on the graphic design industry before programs like Photoshop and its predecessors came along. Designers were cutting and masking things by hand with exacto blades. Boom! All of a sudden these incredible digital tools came along and now every company could afford to hire their own graphic designer. Graphic design is now one of the most employable jobs in the field of art. I could go on and on with examples of this phenomenon.
So will it take less animators to get the job done? Yes, but because of this we're going to see an increase in animation and therefore an increase in animation jobs. You might think it's a big market now, but trust me, it's minute compared to let's say the clothes you're wearing or the chair you're sitting on. Through tools like motion capture we're going to start seeing animation being part of our every day life. And with Digital Double's real-time motion capture system we hope to be part of making this a reality.
yeah, but look at how 3D animation totally crippled 2D animation.
Well, first of all, animation is animation. If you're married to a particular technique, then you're really interested in the means and not the end and I'd suggest you refocus your attention on what's important. That’s like a carpenter turning down power tools because he believes it’s better to do things with a hand saw. Does it really matter what tool he used to make the chair, or is it the chair that matters more? Second, I'd venture to say that the 2D animation industry employees more people today than it ever has. All you have to do is look at the blossoming 2D animation industry that programs like Flash have enabled. Think about Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, online flash games. Once again, here's an innovative tool that by making things easier, has allowed companies to increase the scope of their projects and consequently employee more artists. Look at the iphone! Almost every single iphone game (hundreds that come out every single day!) are all done in 2D. 2D is actually still very much a part of this industry and very much alive.
So in essence, don't be afraid of these tools. Embrace them, and learn how to work with them. If you're married to a technique, you're bound to eventually be tied to a phase of the past. Stay up to date and embrace the future every step along the way. You'll be happier for it and will continue to learn new things and never lose excitement for what you do as an artist. The end never changes, only the means.
cheers,
Kamal
Will motion capture put animators out of work?
Absolutely not. If anything it will create more jobs and increase the scope of what animation studios can do. To me technology is just a tool, and the degree to which i measure the effectiveness of this tool is based entirely on its ability to make my job easier.
But if productivity is increased, doesn't that mean that less animators are needed to do the job?
Absolutely, yes!
Well, then why wouldn't this eliminate jobs?.
All you have to do is look at history. Think back on the graphic design industry before programs like Photoshop and its predecessors came along. Designers were cutting and masking things by hand with exacto blades. Boom! All of a sudden these incredible digital tools came along and now every company could afford to hire their own graphic designer. Graphic design is now one of the most employable jobs in the field of art. I could go on and on with examples of this phenomenon.
So will it take less animators to get the job done? Yes, but because of this we're going to see an increase in animation and therefore an increase in animation jobs. You might think it's a big market now, but trust me, it's minute compared to let's say the clothes you're wearing or the chair you're sitting on. Through tools like motion capture we're going to start seeing animation being part of our every day life. And with Digital Double's real-time motion capture system we hope to be part of making this a reality.
yeah, but look at how 3D animation totally crippled 2D animation.
Well, first of all, animation is animation. If you're married to a particular technique, then you're really interested in the means and not the end and I'd suggest you refocus your attention on what's important. That’s like a carpenter turning down power tools because he believes it’s better to do things with a hand saw. Does it really matter what tool he used to make the chair, or is it the chair that matters more? Second, I'd venture to say that the 2D animation industry employees more people today than it ever has. All you have to do is look at the blossoming 2D animation industry that programs like Flash have enabled. Think about Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, online flash games. Once again, here's an innovative tool that by making things easier, has allowed companies to increase the scope of their projects and consequently employee more artists. Look at the iphone! Almost every single iphone game (hundreds that come out every single day!) are all done in 2D. 2D is actually still very much a part of this industry and very much alive.
So in essence, don't be afraid of these tools. Embrace them, and learn how to work with them. If you're married to a technique, you're bound to eventually be tied to a phase of the past. Stay up to date and embrace the future every step along the way. You'll be happier for it and will continue to learn new things and never lose excitement for what you do as an artist. The end never changes, only the means.
cheers,
Kamal
To read Part 1 in this series click here
To read Part 2 in this series click here
HOW TO BUILD A CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION SYSTEM PART 3: Surfacing
3.1 Introduction
Texturing and lighting are essential processes in the completion of any 3D model. Take a look:
Fig.23 The same model viewed during three parts of the process
It’s extremely important to note that the modeling, texturing, shading and lighting of an object are all parts of a single process, surfacing. This is where most game art fails because the three processes are often...
To read Part 2 in this series click here
HOW TO BUILD A CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION SYSTEM PART 3: Surfacing
3.1 Introduction
Texturing and lighting are essential processes in the completion of any 3D model. Take a look:
Fig.23 The same model viewed during three parts of the process
It’s extremely important to note that the modeling, texturing, shading and lighting of an object are all parts of a single process, surfacing. This is where most game art fails because the three processes are often...
To read Part 1 in this series click here
HOW TO BUILD A CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION SYSTEM PART 2: Modeling & Rigging
Fig. 3 Male character geometry overlaid on da Vinci drawing
2.1. Introduction
The task of modeling characters is rather complicated because it crosses multiple disciplines and requires extensive knowledge in each one. That’s why character creation, in general, is usually a task tackled by multiple people, especially in the film industry. In games, however, where budgets are lower, these disciplines are expected to be mastered...
HOW TO BUILD A CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION SYSTEM PART 2: Modeling & Rigging
Fig. 3 Male character geometry overlaid on da Vinci drawing
2.1. Introduction
The task of modeling characters is rather complicated because it crosses multiple disciplines and requires extensive knowledge in each one. That’s why character creation, in general, is usually a task tackled by multiple people, especially in the film industry. In games, however, where budgets are lower, these disciplines are expected to be mastered...
HOW TO BUILD A CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION SYSTEM PART 1: Introduction & High-Concept
1.1 Introduction
This document is a brief overview of the character customization system I developed during my brief stay at Flying Lab Software (2004-2006)
I interviewed with FlyingLab in mid-October of 2004 to discuss the possibility of coming on board as their character tech. lead. I was told about a pirate game they were working on called Pirates of the Burning Sea and that they were "almost finished" with it, except for the fact that they hadn't yet created any character art or code. !!(blink, blink)!! Needless to say, I took the job and was in crunch starting day one.
My immediate goals were...
1.1 Introduction
This document is a brief overview of the character customization system I developed during my brief stay at Flying Lab Software (2004-2006)
I interviewed with FlyingLab in mid-October of 2004 to discuss the possibility of coming on board as their character tech. lead. I was told about a pirate game they were working on called Pirates of the Burning Sea and that they were "almost finished" with it, except for the fact that they hadn't yet created any character art or code. !!(blink, blink)!! Needless to say, I took the job and was in crunch starting day one.
My immediate goals were...
08/11: How to Fix Normal Map Seams
One of the biggest issues 3D artists encounter when using normal maps is the appearance of seams wherever the UV's for a particular vertex are split (wherever your uv boundaries are).
This issue can be fixed by simply creating an additional edge in your geometry that has the same tangency as its neighboring edge (also known as an inline edge). By doing this you will now have an edge where you can "legally" split your uv's without affecting the tangency. This gets rid of any normal or bump map seams. Alternatively you could generate your normals procedurally, in which case the broken tangency is taken into consideration.
Why does this happen?
The fact is, each vertex on a 3D model can only have one UV; therefore when you split your uv's you are actually creating two vertices sitting on top of eachother. Software like Maya, and Max conceal this fact to make things more manageable for the user. By doing this, the software breaks the tangency between one side of the vertex and the other. And since most normal maps are tangent based, this will lead to seams wherever your uv's are split. The same applies to normals. If you harden your normals you are creating multiple vertices which is why collision objects need to have their normals softened.
But if the normals are smooth along the boundary edge, shouldn't the tangency be the same?
Not necessarily. Some of my research online suggests that some shaders split the verts before calculating the tangency of the vertex, giving the result of a face normal instead of an averaged one. It's possible, then, that if a shader were to calculate the tangecy before splitting the vertices that the seam would not exist. I have yet to confirm this though.
Here's a video walking through these steps:
Though your particular situation may not warrant this as the best solution to the problem, it does presents an alternative to most other solutions out on the web.
Keep in mind that a special set of circumstances have to be in place in order for a seam to show up to begin with. It's quite possible you may not have a seam at all. But in the event that you do, consider this as a solution, especially if procedurally generating your normal maps from an existing model is not an option.
I hope this is helpful.
This issue can be fixed by simply creating an additional edge in your geometry that has the same tangency as its neighboring edge (also known as an inline edge). By doing this you will now have an edge where you can "legally" split your uv's without affecting the tangency. This gets rid of any normal or bump map seams. Alternatively you could generate your normals procedurally, in which case the broken tangency is taken into consideration.
Why does this happen?
The fact is, each vertex on a 3D model can only have one UV; therefore when you split your uv's you are actually creating two vertices sitting on top of eachother. Software like Maya, and Max conceal this fact to make things more manageable for the user. By doing this, the software breaks the tangency between one side of the vertex and the other. And since most normal maps are tangent based, this will lead to seams wherever your uv's are split. The same applies to normals. If you harden your normals you are creating multiple vertices which is why collision objects need to have their normals softened.
But if the normals are smooth along the boundary edge, shouldn't the tangency be the same?
Not necessarily. Some of my research online suggests that some shaders split the verts before calculating the tangency of the vertex, giving the result of a face normal instead of an averaged one. It's possible, then, that if a shader were to calculate the tangecy before splitting the vertices that the seam would not exist. I have yet to confirm this though.
Here's a video walking through these steps:
Though your particular situation may not warrant this as the best solution to the problem, it does presents an alternative to most other solutions out on the web.
Keep in mind that a special set of circumstances have to be in place in order for a seam to show up to begin with. It's quite possible you may not have a seam at all. But in the event that you do, consider this as a solution, especially if procedurally generating your normal maps from an existing model is not an option.
I hope this is helpful.
20/04: Is Digital a Medium?
As a Digital Artist, answering this question was really important to me, especially because I got started in art with oils, acrylics, pencils, pastels and other traditional media.
And let's face it; art created digitally is still not universally accepted as an art form. It's viewed by many people as either a craft or simply one’s ability to use software well. I feel that addressing this question gets us one step closer to convincing people otherwise.
The answer I've come up with is this: Yes, digital art is an art form but not a medium in itself. I'll explain:
A medium does something the artist can not do. It responds. There is an intricate dialogue that occurs between painter and paint, sculptor and stone, artist and medium, that can not be ignored. As soon as an artist makes a mark, the medium responds. In other words, art is a conversation between the artist and the medium, and the mastery of the artist is measured by how well s/he can respond to the feedback the medium is giving in a way that keeps the conversation flowing until finally putting an end to it (or "abandoning" it).
The greatest problem (and maybe the greatest strength) the digital arena presents is that it fails to establish this dialogue between the artist and the medium; therefore it's more of a monologue, an absolute representation of the artist’s intention or contribution (emanation) to the conversation. It's because of this that digital art has the potential of being the sincerest of all arts. Any mistake the artist makes is the artist’s fault alone, while any perfection present is there as a testament of the artist’s own abilities. There are no true accidents in the digital arena (yes, I know that on many levels I might be wrong here, but you get the point).
A medium, however, can be and is usually introduced to the equation because all art must take some tangible form. In the case of monitor displays, light is the medium and probably the only true (current) medium of digital art. In the case of print, it's ink. In the case of embosses, its paper. In the case of 3D printing, it's plastic. Each of these mediums responds differently to the artist’s creation. In fact, the response changes dramatically from one medium to the next, but the artist’s original emanation stays the same. The implications of this are incredible and hard to grasp, but in essence:
In digital art, the artist will make a mark and not get a response until the medium is selected. The medium is usually selected after the work has been completed, therefore making it impossible for the artist to react. This being the case, a dialogue can never be established between artist and medium. You can imagine now, how this places an entirely new challenge in front of digital artists, a challenge that is historically unprecedented.
Digital is not a medium, it’s a space or arena. The art created in this arena is, indeed, art, but not until its bound to a medium. If an artist is intimately aware of the medium s/he is making the work for, then s/he can prepare accordingly, but only when an absolute mastery is attained on the part of the artist, will s/he be able to create a compelling work of digital art. Anything short of this mastery will lead to mediocrity and the work will be at best a good attempt.
Try and try again. The life of a digital artist is one of iteration.
And let's face it; art created digitally is still not universally accepted as an art form. It's viewed by many people as either a craft or simply one’s ability to use software well. I feel that addressing this question gets us one step closer to convincing people otherwise.
The answer I've come up with is this: Yes, digital art is an art form but not a medium in itself. I'll explain:
A medium does something the artist can not do. It responds. There is an intricate dialogue that occurs between painter and paint, sculptor and stone, artist and medium, that can not be ignored. As soon as an artist makes a mark, the medium responds. In other words, art is a conversation between the artist and the medium, and the mastery of the artist is measured by how well s/he can respond to the feedback the medium is giving in a way that keeps the conversation flowing until finally putting an end to it (or "abandoning" it).
The greatest problem (and maybe the greatest strength) the digital arena presents is that it fails to establish this dialogue between the artist and the medium; therefore it's more of a monologue, an absolute representation of the artist’s intention or contribution (emanation) to the conversation. It's because of this that digital art has the potential of being the sincerest of all arts. Any mistake the artist makes is the artist’s fault alone, while any perfection present is there as a testament of the artist’s own abilities. There are no true accidents in the digital arena (yes, I know that on many levels I might be wrong here, but you get the point).
A medium, however, can be and is usually introduced to the equation because all art must take some tangible form. In the case of monitor displays, light is the medium and probably the only true (current) medium of digital art. In the case of print, it's ink. In the case of embosses, its paper. In the case of 3D printing, it's plastic. Each of these mediums responds differently to the artist’s creation. In fact, the response changes dramatically from one medium to the next, but the artist’s original emanation stays the same. The implications of this are incredible and hard to grasp, but in essence:
In digital art, the artist will make a mark and not get a response until the medium is selected. The medium is usually selected after the work has been completed, therefore making it impossible for the artist to react. This being the case, a dialogue can never be established between artist and medium. You can imagine now, how this places an entirely new challenge in front of digital artists, a challenge that is historically unprecedented.
Digital is not a medium, it’s a space or arena. The art created in this arena is, indeed, art, but not until its bound to a medium. If an artist is intimately aware of the medium s/he is making the work for, then s/he can prepare accordingly, but only when an absolute mastery is attained on the part of the artist, will s/he be able to create a compelling work of digital art. Anything short of this mastery will lead to mediocrity and the work will be at best a good attempt.
Try and try again. The life of a digital artist is one of iteration.
20/08: DDNA PUBLICATIONS
Subject: Publications
Posted by: Kamal Siegel
This is a space where industry leaders publish articles and presentations on innovations, advances, discoveries and projects they are working on. Articles on a wide variety of topics are published with the goal of contributing to the overall growth of the digital art community.