Impressive or mediocre?

>>569574
its k but she should have been cel shaded atleast

File: 1495506832407.png (158KB, 272x319px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 272x319px

>>569574
>rwby
>>562421
and yes, 4th season onwards is still using the stolen assets from mmd or whatever.

>>569574
Stolen Assets the "anime" - created by Dead Guy

nothing special

>>569588
>>569604
OP here. That's quite disappointing. Even though to a degree, I kinda respect Dead Oum.

>>569574

More impressive than anyone on 3D will ever create. A stil photo of a blank starring anime girl or a muscle meathead is all anyone here will ever create ( And that's be nice. )

While rwby is not something I've seen, only seen clips and screen shots. As i have zero interest in chinese cartoons or american made chinese cartoons.

At least. Its fluid enough, created and selling. Compared to anything 3d shits will do.

Think it looks good enough, beyond high-school and 3d anon tier.

But well below average japanese hentai artist, and furries.

And laughable to pro level content.

4th season definitely looks the best in terms of artstyle, and I'm not even sure if its true that RWBY has stolen assets or not, but to me the Vol 4 character models look better than they did, but that could just be Maya's flat shader at work.

>>569574
Impressively mediocre

>>569574
.....It's great for a small team of animator, but not AAA material.

I like it, the model is cute.
But yeah it needs some depth/shading

>>569574
I really love the first season because of the fight scenes. Movements I would say. then... something has died.

File: 1477476149196.jpg (90KB, 696x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 696x720px

Kemono Friends was made by a 12 man team over 2 years. RWBY was made by a 15 man team over 12 months according to http://www.creativebloq.com/animation/rbwy-anime-action-dynamic-3d-twist-9134477.

Since RWBY models and animation look a lot better than KF (although plot/direction-wise it is 100x shittier), I'd say it's pretty impressive.

>>569574
>Thoughts on this piece of work from a technical standpoint.
Well, from a TECHNICAL standpoint and therefore a potentially objective standpoint, as opposed a subjective opinion standpoint, you're going to have to provide a lot more information in order to say "impressive" (which, from a technical objective perspective, can only mean "outperformed" based on available resources) or "mediocre" ("under-performed" based on available resources).
Example: There are some really technically "impressive" short movies made by one man or small studios that are impressive because a small number of people, using a small budget, and possibly a short amount of time (though often several years) produce work that a large studio would produce quicker but at much greater cost.

The other grounds for "impressive" would be if a new or highly refined technique were used to achieve results either not seen before, or seen before but done more easily / faster / cheaper / etc. Example: The Guilty Gear Xrd celshading method is technically "impressive", even if you don't personally care for the art style or design choices you can still admit that it achieves the style it set out to achieve, it is a complex and "interesting" style (technically, even if you find it personally unappealing it still makes deliberate use of color choices and design decisions and so on).

Any time you want to talk about something from a "technical" perspective, you're going to have to define any words that don't already have rigorous definitions and, for the sake of the reader, take a moment to briefly explain the preexisting definitions any rigorous technical jargon.

TL;DR it's fucking shit m8, hope those RWBY fucks kill themselves and Netflix terminates their contract.

File: the-last-of-us-remastered-screenshot-07-ps4-eu-29oct14.jpg (65KB, 627x353px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 627x353px

>>569574
Technical standpoint? Don't know. Who cares. I mean... I can see it? The picture is displaying correctly on my screen - is that what you mean by 'technical standpoint'?

Don't get bogged down in tech shit - you need to focus on learning composition, proportion and learning to use colour. This is the stuff that's important. This is the stuff that no amount of software tutorials are gonna teach you...

But... here's the good part.

Your composition, proportion and colour - not bad. Not a bad start at all. You could do this if you keep really working at it.

You need to learn what 'tangency' is in composition and how to avoid it (it's a bad thing btw) and learn how to lead the viewers eye on a journey around the frame with your composition.
Lighting could be more dramatic and foreboding - perhaps allowing some long, early-evening shadows to creep into the ground in the background like pic related and just one or two very subtle highlights catching on some of the scenery.

But yeah. Work harder, start taking photographs as a hobby, don't sweat the tech stuff because it changes every 5 years, and don't come to /3/ very often, and if you do - only listen to me. I'm serious.

>>569574
It looks great. But I really wish the characters would stop moving around so much when they talk. They basically flail their around as they talk which is not how people talk. I think the movement distracts from the Dialog.

>>570820
Guess which one made more money

>>569574

Impressively mediocre.

>>569574

Always looked cheap to me