Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chiggity-check them here: http://ultramarinesthemovie.com/gallery/weapons

Arrrgh! They're SOOOO out of proportion!!!!1!11!1



Did I do it right?

Look fine to me.

Looks good! Hoping for a little more info on that site, though...

I hear they're going to use mig pigments to weather everything too!

The problem isn't that they're horribly out of scale - that'd be easy to fix. The problem is that the proportions on them are just slightly off, making everything seem just a little weird.

You mean, the uncanny valley effect.

They all look fine.

Stay on topic here, any 'joke' comments will be treated as spam and the poster will then be treated accordingly.

I would really like to see some pics with the entire weapon in full view. I would also like to see some of their preliminary skins as well as some bump maps they might be working on. So far I have nothing bad to say about this project. The writer has a solid rep, the voice actors are experienced (if even in a slightly hacky sense) and so far the CGI looks to be right on target. It most certainly will be a straight to DVD movie, but as long as we expect that and rate it accordingly then I think it will actually exceed expectations.

How come they can do the weapons right, but not the armor?

JohnHwangDD wrote:How come they can do the weapons right, but not the armor?

Er, what was wrong with the armor? Or is this another complaint about what we saw last time, which were clearly marked as "color and insignia references"?

But yeah. The weapons are looking good.

More Dakka... MORE DAKKA!

They are looking good so far!

BrookM wrote:You mean, the uncanny valley effect.

Exactly what I mean.

What's an "Engraver"?
Did I miss some thing?

BrookM wrote:You mean, the uncanny valley effect.

You keep saying that - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let me Wikipedia That for you : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Shazam.

They look fine to me. Probably because the people who wield them refer to me as 'xenos scum'. But yeah, fine.

Looking good!

But Flamer is too short,dont you think?

sevend3f wrote:Let me Wikipedia That for you : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Shazam.

And, were you to read the article you linked, you would learn that it refers to the point in which machines resemble humans nearly perfectly, but are jarring in some manner and cause revulsion.

The link that was posted refers to weapons and tools. So far as I am aware, there has been not a single CGI or rendered image released of a human (or other living being) associated with this project yet. There is no emotional connection made with inanimate objects (weighted companion cubes aside) hence, there is no uncanny valley.

Have they said who the poor suckers are who are getting stomped by the boys in blue yet? My money is on a generic chaos warband.

Uncanny flamer effect then. Just looks... off
Maybe because we are used to seeing them so small?

I am doubting Chaos unless it is daemons as for some people marines fighting marines could be confusing and it really does not show off the story of warhammer and well there is a lot of backstory to explain chaos.

My bet is on orkz, and oh look a video game with the same theme is coming out.

Flamer is not a side shot so judging the length will be impossible.

Everything is a standard grey, a little boxy and untextured. As for being out of proportion you are trying to compare it to heroic scale 28mm minis. It is going to be different, get over it.

Ouze wrote:

sevend3f wrote:Let me Wikipedia That for you : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Shazam.

And, were you to read the article you linked, you would learn that it refers to the point in which machines resemble humans nearly perfectly, but are jarring in some manner and cause revulsion.

The link that was posted refers to weapons and tools. So far as I am aware, there has been not a single CGI or rendered image released of a human (or other living being) associated with this project yet. There is no emotional connection made with inanimate objects (weighted companion cubes aside) hence, there is no uncanny valley.

Jeezus. So is there a better term to describe the equivalent effect when rendering non-human objects in 2D? Seems to me that BrookM simply used "uncanny valley effect" as an analogous term to describe something that may not have a name yet (i.e. the "slightly off-ness" in 2D renderings). Maybe it wasn't the correct term (a term which 90% of the population probably have never heard of btw), but it got the point across. There's really no need to get pedantic about it.

Elusive71 wrote:Maybe it wasn't the correct term (a term which 90% of the population probably have never heard of btw), but it got the point across. There's really no need to get pedantic about it.

Um, you know we're on the Intarwebz, right?

Elusive71 wrote:Jeezus. So is there a better term to describe the equivalent effect when rendering non-human objects in 2D? Seems to me that BrookM simply used "uncanny valley effect" as an analogous term to describe something that may not have a name yet (i.e. the "slightly off-ness" in 2D renderings).

Sure - "out of proportion".

Elusive71 wrote: Maybe it wasn't the correct term (a term which 90% of the population probably have never heard of btw), but it got the point across. There's really no need to get pedantic about it.

By that rather flexible measure, C.S. Goto did nothing wrong, as 90% of the population does not know the difference between a multilaser and a boltgun... right?

If you're going to use an obscure technical phrase to look clever, and you use it incorrectly, expect to get called on it. That's all I'm sayin.

All I care about is a projected release date.

TobyDog wrote:What's an "Engraver"?
Did I miss some thing?

I'm not quite sure, but in the old Inquisition-War series the SM used to engrave all sorts of stuff into the bones of say, fallen battle-brothers, to honor them and their sacrifices. So thats what it might be. Thats a big "might" tho.

The Imperial fists are big on engraving bones and stuff.

I like the duelling power sword, that's pretty sweet. It's cool how the ultramarine's symbol is worked into the bell guard.

Ozymandias wrote:The Imperial fists are big on engraving bones...

Giggedy

Is there any word on if this movie is supposed to be live action, or CGI?

If it goes the way of some of these new movies, its going to be cool in 3D, either way.