Personally I like pharaoh (though the names baffle me, they don't look in any way egyptian) and am less impressed by sarcophagus. It seems that the black shades differ between the two genes which is a bit distracting. Also, while pharaoh has plenty of coloured shapes with a gradient inside of each, sarcophagus seems to get much less in comparison. And the markings are completely different shapes too. I just wish the two matched each other better, cause pharaoh could be used in a lot of interesting ways I think.
[quote name="000000" date="2022-01-19 16:20:52" ]
[quote name="Arkhelios" date="2022-01-19 13:18:18" ]
[quote name="000000" date="2022-01-19 13:07:30" ]
Just want to add, on my laptop, which has a properly calibrated screen, I can see the details on the dark parts just fine. It’s dark, yes, but it’s not entirely pitch black. So if you’re having trouble seeing the details, you might want to adjust your monitor.
I do really hope that the gene isn’t lightened up any, because personally the darkness is the draw, and it would lose all its appeal to me if it were altered to be lighter.
[/quote]
What do you mean by "properly calibrated"? I've looked at these genes on several different pcs, tablets, and phones from different companies who mostly use the default settings and none of us can see the lineart on the blackest bits. I can on my s21 if i scroll in far enough everything is pixels but thats about it... i also cant see it on my cousins $6000 pc. Either way, nobody should have to adjust their entire screen/color display that they've used for years for one (1) thing haha
I actually really like it the gene, but I don't like that I literally cannot see what part of my dragon is what...
[/quote]
Most monitors are not properly calibrated out of the box. Generally, it’s something you have to go out of your way to do. (I do graphics work and art, so it’s important to me to calibrate all of my monitors.) The price and quality of the monitor doesn’t matter. You can find guides online, for calibrating by eye, search guides for your specific model of monitor which may be available from the retailer or from people who’ve done calibration with their own tools, or buy the tools to do it. And it’s pretty common for default settings on monitors to bump the contrast up to make colors pop and the image look “nicer”, even though it’s less accurate, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this is why so many people are having problems.
I understand that you might not want to calibrate your monitor just for one website, especially if you don’t feel you need to otherwise, but my point stands.
[/quote]
While I'm sure you're right, my old screen has much lower contrast compared to both my newer one and my phone, and the genes are equally hard to see on both. (I also messed with the brightness on all of them to test, and that's not it either.) It seems to be mostly because of the stark white background, because even on my high contrast screen when I put an image on a black background I could suddenly see the outlines.
That doesn't change the fact that the colours are [i]extremely[/i] close. I don't think people are actually arguing that the FR art team is incompetent and genuinely used the same colour for the outlines and the genes. Just that to the average eye it does look too similar, which makes it blend in too much. Sure, it may be more visible with a different monitor or on a black background, but as neither of those apply to the majority of the playerbase it doesn't really matter when it comes to making game content.
Personally I like pharaoh (though the names baffle me, they don't look in any way egyptian) and am less impressed by sarcophagus. It seems that the black shades differ between the two genes which is a bit distracting. Also, while pharaoh has plenty of coloured shapes with a gradient inside of each, sarcophagus seems to get much less in comparison. And the markings are completely different shapes too. I just wish the two matched each other better, cause pharaoh could be used in a lot of interesting ways I think.
000000 wrote on 2022-01-19 16:20:52:
Arkhelios wrote on 2022-01-19 13:18:18:
000000 wrote on 2022-01-19 13:07:30:
Just want to add, on my laptop, which has a properly calibrated screen, I can see the details on the dark parts just fine. It’s dark, yes, but it’s not entirely pitch black. So if you’re having trouble seeing the details, you might want to adjust your monitor.
I do really hope that the gene isn’t lightened up any, because personally the darkness is the draw, and it would lose all its appeal to me if it were altered to be lighter.
What do you mean by "properly calibrated"? I've looked at these genes on several different pcs, tablets, and phones from different companies who mostly use the default settings and none of us can see the lineart on the blackest bits. I can on my s21 if i scroll in far enough everything is pixels but thats about it... i also cant see it on my cousins $6000 pc. Either way, nobody should have to adjust their entire screen/color display that they've used for years for one (1) thing haha
I actually really like it the gene, but I don't like that I literally cannot see what part of my dragon is what...
Most monitors are not properly calibrated out of the box. Generally, it’s something you have to go out of your way to do. (I do graphics work and art, so it’s important to me to calibrate all of my monitors.) The price and quality of the monitor doesn’t matter. You can find guides online, for calibrating by eye, search guides for your specific model of monitor which may be available from the retailer or from people who’ve done calibration with their own tools, or buy the tools to do it. And it’s pretty common for default settings on monitors to bump the contrast up to make colors pop and the image look “nicer”, even though it’s less accurate, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this is why so many people are having problems.
I understand that you might not want to calibrate your monitor just for one website, especially if you don’t feel you need to otherwise, but my point stands.
While I'm sure you're right, my old screen has much lower contrast compared to both my newer one and my phone, and the genes are equally hard to see on both. (I also messed with the brightness on all of them to test, and that's not it either.) It seems to be mostly because of the stark white background, because even on my high contrast screen when I put an image on a black background I could suddenly see the outlines.
That doesn't change the fact that the colours are
extremely close. I don't think people are actually arguing that the FR art team is incompetent and genuinely used the same colour for the outlines and the genes. Just that to the average eye it does look too similar, which makes it blend in too much. Sure, it may be more visible with a different monitor or on a black background, but as neither of those apply to the majority of the playerbase it doesn't really matter when it comes to making game content.
New genes, yay! Also new familiar looks cool!
New genes, yay! Also new familiar looks cool!
Regarding calibration; I professionally calibrated both my monitors. I have the post cal sheets lying around somewhere, in case someone's interested. Everything checks out. Gamut, deltaE, gamma curve, brightness/contrast, grey level, everything. Are the monitors truly-truly accurate? No, because that's simply not possible, but they are incredibly close (dE values below 1.5 iirc)
The blacks in the primary gene are displayed as very black and I can't see the difference between the lineart and the black colouring. I can see little difference between the colouring and a blacker black if change the background colour to pure black. Perhaps the gene was created using a monitor that wasn't very accurate, or maybe it was intentional, who knows.
Why people see the colours so differently in this case, is because every screen is unique. Even things like brightness affect the total accuracy of a monitor more than one might think. Unfortunately there's no way to tell what settings are best for a specific monitor, as the difference between monitors is great. Two monitors of the same brand and type will both display colours differently even if they are from the same batch, and thus require different settings each to display good colours.
Monitors and televisions that are calibrated out of the box have not been truly fine-tuned and may not be accurate. It really depends on luck of the draw. If one has bought a pre-calibrated monitor, be sure to check if there is a post-calibration sheet in the box, and that the monitor settings are the same as the ones on the sheet. If there is no sheet, that means that maybe only the basics of the basics may have been checked, but there is no guarantee. (Generally they may calibrate one of the monitors in the factory and then copy-paste the settings onto the others, which likely doesn't make them colour-accurate).
Sorry for this silly tl;dr, I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I just happen to know how this stuff works because it's my job, and thought that maybe some people would appreciate the information. People can always PM me if they want to know more about this kind of stuff.
Regarding calibration; I professionally calibrated both my monitors. I have the post cal sheets lying around somewhere, in case someone's interested. Everything checks out. Gamut, deltaE, gamma curve, brightness/contrast, grey level, everything. Are the monitors truly-truly accurate? No, because that's simply not possible, but they are incredibly close (dE values below 1.5 iirc)
The blacks in the primary gene are displayed as very black and I can't see the difference between the lineart and the black colouring. I can see little difference between the colouring and a blacker black if change the background colour to pure black. Perhaps the gene was created using a monitor that wasn't very accurate, or maybe it was intentional, who knows.
Why people see the colours so differently in this case, is because every screen is unique. Even things like brightness affect the total accuracy of a monitor more than one might think. Unfortunately there's no way to tell what settings are best for a specific monitor, as the difference between monitors is great. Two monitors of the same brand and type will both display colours differently even if they are from the same batch, and thus require different settings each to display good colours.
Monitors and televisions that are calibrated out of the box have not been truly fine-tuned and may not be accurate. It really depends on luck of the draw. If one has bought a pre-calibrated monitor, be sure to check if there is a post-calibration sheet in the box, and that the monitor settings are the same as the ones on the sheet. If there is no sheet, that means that maybe only the basics of the basics may have been checked, but there is no guarantee. (Generally they may calibrate one of the monitors in the factory and then copy-paste the settings onto the others, which likely doesn't make them colour-accurate).
Sorry for this silly tl;dr, I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I just happen to know how this stuff works because it's my job, and thought that maybe some people would appreciate the information. People can always PM me if they want to know more about this kind of stuff.
look i do really really like these genes but
what's up with the insanely stupid names
look i do really really like these genes but
what's up with the insanely stupid names
I like the primary gene, very colorful and nicely matched with black. Feel like there's not enough color the secondary.
Now I have an excuse to brush up on my typing of Pharaoh and Sarcophagus.
I like the primary gene, very colorful and nicely matched with black. Feel like there's not enough color the secondary.
Now I have an excuse to brush up on my typing of Pharaoh and Sarcophagus.
|
|
Get this accent here!
|
OMGOSH I NEED THAT BIRB!!!!
Sorry for the yelling, so pretty! And I love the pharaoh primary!
OMGOSH I NEED THAT BIRB!!!!
Sorry for the yelling, so pretty! And I love the pharaoh primary!
[quote name="@Gryffion" date="2022-01-19 08:10:52" ]
[quote name="Natron" date="2022-01-19 07:51:21" ]
Guys, something you need to take into account when talking about the darkness of genes is the background on which the image exists. Take that image, put it on a darker background. The genes are not completely black and you'll see it once you've stopped looking at the pure white background of the FR website template.
[/quote]
Yes they are not completly black, I agree. But still they will be mainly displayed against light bacground ( I'm taking scenes to equasion) and not dark one. Keeping this in mind I would argue that picking so dark colours was really strange choice.
[/quote]
Excellent point. It's possible that the artists were working against a darker background. I too work on a non-white canvas so my eyes aren't too strained, it appears they just didn't consider that this will exist on a primarily white website. Some of my accents also ended up slightly darker than I had intended so I know it happens.
But something else some people have pointed out - these are black genes. That's kinda the point of them. Obsidian does the exact same on multiple genes and poses where the visibility of the lineart and shadows is practically invisible. These genes appear to be using a colour very similar to Obsidian so... is black too black? Is dark too dark? Just like no one is forced to have a dragon with Obsidian or Sapphire or Sanguine, no one is forced to have these genes either.
Still, a confirmation from the Staff letting us know whether these are broken or not would be excellent. I don't mind either way but I think I prefer this darkness.
Natron wrote on 2022-01-19 07:51:21:
Guys, something you need to take into account when talking about the darkness of genes is the background on which the image exists. Take that image, put it on a darker background. The genes are not completely black and you'll see it once you've stopped looking at the pure white background of the FR website template.
Yes they are not completly black, I agree. But still they will be mainly displayed against light bacground ( I'm taking scenes to equasion) and not dark one. Keeping this in mind I would argue that picking so dark colours was really strange choice.
Excellent point. It's possible that the artists were working against a darker background. I too work on a non-white canvas so my eyes aren't too strained, it appears they just didn't consider that this will exist on a primarily white website. Some of my accents also ended up slightly darker than I had intended so I know it happens.
But something else some people have pointed out - these are black genes. That's kinda the point of them. Obsidian does the exact same on multiple genes and poses where the visibility of the lineart and shadows is practically invisible. These genes appear to be using a colour very similar to Obsidian so... is black too black? Is dark too dark? Just like no one is forced to have a dragon with Obsidian or Sapphire or Sanguine, no one is forced to have these genes either.
Still, a confirmation from the Staff letting us know whether these are broken or not would be excellent. I don't mind either way but I think I prefer this darkness.
cillian || adult || he/they
