swivel capability

3

Okay, since this issue has been out for a long, long time, I feel I can post a better, unedited reference that doesn’t involve blurry artichokes. Still gonna tag this as spoilers. Behold, Whirl’s fine manipulators, or, as I like to think of them, his secret deedly-boppers.

The first picture seems to suggest that each one has three fingers, and they are also plainly capable of swiveling, folding, or extending as needed to accomplish tasks requiring manual dexterity. I mean, Whirl successfully eased open a spark case and successfully implanted a spark using them. He might not be the craftsman he was, but I bet he still has a deft touch. 

The bottom picture is the ref I really wanted, to show the way his claw splits and slides back. 

redinkofshame  asked:

You mentioned that the female body-chan is too exaggerated for your tastes; what do you think of the Figma Archetype Next: She? (I know you mentioned cost, I'm just curious if you have experience with it and it's less pose-able or something.)

Hi, thanks for the ask, and for your patience!  I had a couple of crazy work weeks, so I’m behind on asks and posting new pictures, but I’m hoping to catch up next week!

As to your question – first off, some background for anyone reading:

S.H. Figuarts Body-chan (left) | Figma Archetype Next: She (right)

In general, I do think the Figma Archetype Next: She figure looks like a more useful resource for someone seeking less stylized anatomy.  I also think these look like two entirely different women, with Body-chan appearing maybe 4′ or 4′5″ based on her proportions and head size (though still lacking anatomical believability), while Next: She’s proportions are more like 5′9″ to 6ft tall.  I even overlaid Next: She’s photo over some of these athlete body comparison charts to see how the proportions line up.  She consistently matches the 6′+ female athletes, and occasionally a 5′6″ or 5′8″.  I recommend trying it out yourself too, paying close attention to head size and placement of the soles of the feet. Any drawings based on these figures would have to account for their proportional differences.

I don’t have either figure, so I can’t really vouch for quality or poseability.  I’ve found pictures of Body-kun and Body-chan together, but I don’t know how Next: She’s scale compares to Body-kun’s.

My biggest worry about Next: She from looking at pictures is flexibility in posing.  With such a long torso, it would be difficult to get a realistic bend or swivel in the spine without having an additional point of articulation at the center of the waist.  Even Body-kun with his short torso doesn’t have as much flexibility there as I would like.  I can’t get him to fully curl over his knees, for example.

The pictures on this site are some good examples of the lack of realistic bend.  She achieves some good @eschergirls​ -like snaking in the waist, but I’ve never seen a real human achieve such feats. ^_^

I also find it disappointing that none of the female figures appear to have any full swivel capability above the biceps or the upper thighs, because it’s helpful to see the rotation of the muscles and joints even if your female characters only have the slightest hint of muscle definition.  It may not be a deal-breaker if you have good anatomical knowledge or have a simplified art style, but it’s a minus for sure if you ever draw buff women.  It looks like both female figures might have *some* swivel in the thighs, but it also looks much more limited than Body-kun, who can achieve over 90 degree turnout purely from upper thigh rotation. (anyone out there who has either female figure and can confirm?)

Here’s another example of how lack of flexibility can lead to faulty posing[1].  And this is even one of the promo images used for Next: She.  Yes, if you were lifting your leg in front of you, the back of your knee and the heel of your foot would face forward[2].  But if you were lifting your leg to the side as the figure is doing, the back of your knee and heel would face outward[3].  I’m not sure if it’s just a bad pose or a reflection of this figure lacking thigh-swiveling capability.  Either way, it’s something to watch out for when making a mannequin approximate a pose that it can’t quite do.  (disclaimer: Body-kun can almost do a full side split, but he can’t lift his leg above his waist, so it’s not like he can emulate these dancers either.  But he can do pose #1 with his knee and even his thigh muscles facing the right direction.)

Of course, mannequins are only guides, to be used as supplements alongside anatomical study from life.  So if your knowledge can fill in the gaps that the figure leaves behind, it’s all good.  I think this figure could probably be helpful for artists who are looking for more basic poses, or artists who don’t draw a lot of women with visible muscle mass, or for anyone who has good anatomical knowledge and can recognize the points where the figure deviates from reality.  When using mannequins, I also like to feel out unusual poses with my own body, and look at video and photos (ones I know aren’t doctored) and real life to judge the pose’s viability and do anatomical comparisons.

Personally, I find it more helpful to have a believable pose as a base, regardless of gender, than to have a correctly gendered figure that lacks believable posing ability.  So I prefer to stick with Body-kun for now.  But that’s purely personal preference.

tl:dr I do think Figma Archetype Next: She would be a helpful reference as long as you supplement it heavily with anatomical studying from life and can recognize where the figure falls short of reality - but this is also true of most drawing aids.  I think it has better anatomy than Body-chan, but I don’t think it has the same range of believable poseability as Body-kun.

I know that was probably way more detail than you wanted, but I hope it helps!  If anyone has either female figure and wants to chime in, feel free!