- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by
Rock Martin.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2006 at 1:27 am #42200
Rock Martin
ParticipantDo you have any pointers on how to keep FBB builds constant?
Like, would I have to think of a solid measurement for biceps, deltoids, quadriceps, waist, breasts, hips, whether she has a six pack, a fourpack, a 20 pack, whether she shows veins or not?
Can anyone help me?
October 23, 2006 at 9:27 pm #42201Lu
ParticipantI don't exactly understand what you're asking here.
Like.. what's the average measurements or what the measurements look like on certain pics or.. something? I don't get it.October 23, 2006 at 11:23 pm #42202ParticipantHow do I keep my muscle girl character(s)' builds constant?
Like how do I keep their size, biceps, deltoids, quadriceps, breasts, waists, calves, hips, abs, and vascularity(if applied) the same while drawing a new pic of the same character?
October 24, 2006 at 1:11 am #42203Fett
ParticipantAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, I getcha.
Well, here's what I do.
First of all, I decide on the build I want the character to have, for example, you may say, "I want me 5'6" lady to have 20" arms". What I'll do, is draw the character and measure her height. Bear in mind that the height from top of the head to the bottom of the groin is half the full height. So, for example, say your 5'6" lady, from head to groin, is 20cm. Well, on your paper, 20cm is equal to 33-inches (half of 5'6"). So that gives a ratio of 1.65. In other words, each single centimeter on your page is a representation of 1.65 inches. Got it?
Okay, then what I'll do is draw the arms (you get used to sizes because you can use refs) and using the formula for discovering the circumference of the arm, I work out to see if it's in the right area. The formula for the circumference of an oval is this –
first take the measurement of the height of the arm, then the width of the arm (depending on the pose, you'll have to approximate – generally, the bicep head is circular, so it's height and width will be the same, just bear in mind that the triceps and muscles on the side of the arm will add to the width a little). Then, half both the height and width, calling them a and b respectively. So 'a' is half the height of the oval, and b is half the width of the oval. Then, square each of the halves individually, then, add them together. Divide that number by 2, then square root it. Then times the number by 2, then by pi, then by the ratio.That's: (square root of [(a2 + b2)/2]) x 2 x pi
So, let's say, for the above example character and the height of the arm is 5cm, and the width is 3.5cm. We take the half values (2.5cm and 1.75cm). Then we square them (6.25cm and 3.06cm) and add 'em together = 9.31cm. Divide that by 2 (4.65cm) then square root it (2.15cm). Now, multiply this by 2 (4.31cm), and then by pi (13.55cm). Finally, multiply it by your ratio so this becomes inches, which is 1.65, giving you a total circumference of 22.35-inches. So, you'd've probably gone a little too big, but because this isn't exact, you're in the right ball park and it shouldn't really be a problem anyone will notice.
You can do this for any circumference of the body, and you can use it to keep a consistency in your characters.
Bear in mind, this is specifically numbers. There is another way.
Since the human body is filled with all kinds of amazing proportions (the tip of the hip to the ankle is the same as the base of the neck to the groin for example) that link together, there is also the proportions for muscle mass in relation to the rest of the body. In other words, you can use the body itself, as a ruler. For example, you could say you want the arms to be an entire two heads tall and one head thick (which would be huge). This would allow you to have, once again, a consistent relationship in your character and it works very well. However, proportion is also relative. For example, if you look at Michelle Ralabate in her prime, the lady had 15-inches on her arms, but she was just shy of 5 feet tall. Had she been the same height as Marja Lehtonen, her arms would've measured 17-inches – but the proportion to her body would stay the same, so the number in inches, isn't definable through this method alone. You could even use the first method, then discover what proportion on the human body is the same as the arms, without using a ruler.
I generally, combine the two, working them back and forth, finding an appealing proportion or choosing a specific number and then working the other method into it, and after a while, you get used to how big the character should be without much effort. Just find what works for you.
Hope that helps.
October 24, 2006 at 4:04 am #42204ParticipantAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, I getcha.
Well, here's what I do.
First of all, I decide on the build I want the character to have, for example, you may say, "I want me 5'6" lady to have 20" arms". What I'll do, is draw the character and measure her height. Bear in mind that the height from top of the head to the bottom of the groin is half the full height. So, for example, say your 5'6" lady, from head to groin, is 20cm. Well, on your paper, 20cm is equal to 33-inches (half of 5'6"). So that gives a ratio of 1.65. In other words, each single centimeter on your page is a representation of 1.65 inches. Got it?
Okay, then what I'll do is draw the arms (you get used to sizes because you can use refs) and using the formula for discovering the circumference of the arm, I work out to see if it's in the right area. The formula for the circumference of an oval is this –
first take the measurement of the height of the arm, then the width of the arm (depending on the pose, you'll have to approximate – generally, the bicep head is circular, so it's height and width will be the same, just bear in mind that the triceps and muscles on the side of the arm will add to the width a little). Then, half both the height and width, calling them a and b respectively. So 'a' is half the height of the oval, and b is half the width of the oval. Then, square each of the halves individually, then, add them together. Divide that number by 2, then square root it. Then times the number by 2, then by pi, then by the ratio.That's: (square root of [(a2 + b2)/2]) x 2 x pi
So, let's say, for the above example character and the height of the arm is 5cm, and the width is 3.5cm. We take the half values (2.5cm and 1.75cm). Then we square them (6.25cm and 3.06cm) and add 'em together = 9.31cm. Divide that by 2 (4.65cm) then square root it (2.15cm). Now, multiply this by 2 (4.31cm), and then by pi (13.55cm). Finally, multiply it by your ratio so this becomes inches, which is 1.65, giving you a total circumference of 22.35-inches. So, you'd've probably gone a little too big, but because this isn't exact, you're in the right ball park and it shouldn't really be a problem anyone will notice.
You can do this for any circumference of the body, and you can use it to keep a consistency in your characters.
Bear in mind, this is specifically numbers. There is another way.
Since the human body is filled with all kinds of amazing proportions (the tip of the hip to the ankle is the same as the base of the neck to the groin for example) that link together, there is also the proportions for muscle mass in relation to the rest of the body. In other words, you can use the body itself, as a ruler. For example, you could say you want the arms to be an entire two heads tall and one head thick (which would be huge). This would allow you to have, once again, a consistent relationship in your character and it works very well. However, proportion is also relative. For example, if you look at Michelle Ralabate in her prime, the lady had 15-inches on her arms, but she was just shy of 5 feet tall. Had she been the same height as Marja Lehtonen, her arms would've measured 17-inches – but the proportion to her body would stay the same, so the number in inches, isn't definable through this method alone. You could even use the first method, then discover what proportion on the human body is the same as the arms, without using a ruler.
I generally, combine the two, working them back and forth, finding an appealing proportion or choosing a specific number and then working the other method into it, and after a while, you get used to how big the character should be without much effort. Just find what works for you.
Hope that helps.
BTW, I learned from some art books that I got from the library that the head is 8.5-9 inches tall. Can I figure that in my drawings too?
BTW, in your example, one head thick? Does that mean from top to bottom or side to side?
October 24, 2006 at 5:28 am #42205ParticipantHoly crap Feet, that was confusing ::)
Er.. but me I have no method really. I couldn't even estimate the size of one of my girls' arms. o_O
Might also be because I suck with estimating.
I dunno. Go with the flow? I just seem to try and work things by eye.October 24, 2006 at 7:21 am #42206ParticipantBTW, I learned from some art books that I got from the library that the head is 8.5-9 inches tall. Can I figure that in my drawings too?
You can, but it's bollocks. The head of a person is dependent on their height. Someone who's 8 foot tall will have a bigger head than someone who's 4 foot tall. Basically, I've noticed that if you take the height of the head as measurment, then the body kinda breaks down like this – Head #1 is the actual head, #2 ends where the abs begin, #3 ends at the belly button, and #4 ends at the bottom of the crotch. Thus, you could just times the head by four if you haven't drawn half the figure. I'm sure the 8-9" remark is an average, and you could work out the heighter of a character's head to use for the formula and proportions as you wish. Whatever your focal point is, really.
BTW, in your example, one head thick? Does that mean from top to bottom or side to side?
Side to side. That would be thickness. Top to bottom would be height.
Holy crap Feet, that was confusing ::)
FEET?! On of these days – BAM! ZOOM! STRAIGHT TO THE MOON!
Er.. but me I have no method really. I couldn't even estimate the size of one of my girls' arms. o_O
Might also be because I suck with estimating.
I dunno. Go with the flow? I just seem to try and work things by eye.I agree. You should always go with proportion, composition, and as she says, 'flow'. Work it by the eye is right. Then, once you've got the right kind of proportions on paper, you can work back to find whatever measuring tool you need (body parts or numbers or both or something else) in order to keep them consistent.
October 24, 2006 at 8:04 am #42207ParticipantI agree. You should always go with proportion, composition, and as she says, 'flow'. Work it by the eye is right. Then, once you've got the right kind of proportions on paper, you can work back to find whatever measuring tool you need (body parts or numbers or both or something else) in order to keep them consistent.
That's part of the problem…I can't readily remember details by eyeballing them…
October 24, 2006 at 7:56 pm #42208ParticipantThen do the other thing with rulers. ^__^
October 24, 2006 at 8:09 pm #42209ParticipantThen do the other thing with rulers. ^__^
OK. 🙂 Anyway, about the breasts…should I use back view pics of a person to see how wide a female's torso is w/o the breasts and then use the side views to see how many heads wide(from side to side) the breasts are counting the actual torso? I'm using the 9 inch head for people 5 ft. to 7 ft. tall. For taller people, I might just divide the number of inches tall the person is by 8, since people that tall may need a bigger head. What about shorter people, though? I'm sorry for relying so much on math…and real life measurements…
I used Iczerman;s stuff as an example though just to see how he works…so take that part with a grain of salt…^__^;
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.