You are without a doubt correct. BUT! (i know) What context of focus are we speaking of? If quicksilver is very far away, yes, blurring isn't a factor since it's similar to watching a plane in the distance. If that plane were turned into a human, is travelling the same speed at a much closer range, we could arguably be seeing a blur right before us...permitting various conditions, like say the middle of a huge fight.
There is no way possible you will focus on that person and if you do, it's for a split second. it's like looking at a ceiling fan; you would have to focus pretty hard to see even one blade(which is really all you have to see to compare the two). But unlike the ceiling fan blade, quicksilver is sporadic in motion and eventually you won't be able to tell where he went. Thus him becoming a blur or outright disappearing which we know isn't actually the case, but the eye can be fooled as well. Sometimes we see things that aren't really there.
No. Your eyes do not create motion blur. You think they do because the only way you can study fast motion is through film and photography. Your eye does not record visual information in still frames. Your eye does not create motion blur. It creates focal blur, in that it can focus on a specific object, and the surrounding objects are blurred. Your eye does this so you can study and concentrate on something specific. Focal blur is not the same as motion blur. Motion blur is specifically the phenomena of film and photography. It happens like this: as the camera takes a shot, a single frame, of a moment in time, it records the elements it can see. If those things move, it records ALL the movements as one simultaneous moment. In the early days of photographs, cameras took several minutes to take a single photo. For those minutes everyone had to stand perfectly still, else the photo would be ruined by blurs. If you have a camera with a variable shutter, you can create such motion blur pictures yourself. The same is true for video cameras because they record with still frames. The human eye does not do this. Your eye will never record a physical movement as a motion blur. If your eyes are not focused on it, it will be a focal blur, but not a motion blur.
So in the example of a ceiling fan, do this: take your hand and wave it very quickly in front of your face. You're not seeing motion blur, but focal blur. Your eye tries to focus on the hand, but it moves faster than it can catch up. The parts its not focused on are blurred exactly as the wall in front of you is blurred. The wall isn't moving, but it's blurred because you're not focused on it. Your hand, when 'out of focus' is focally blurred, not motion blurred. The streak-line phenomena is simply not the effect of the human eye. Wave your hand and look at the wall through it. Your hand does not create streaks. Your hand blurs because your eye can't focus on all the moving parts simultaneously, not because it's overlapping those movements into a single moment.
In the Ultimates 2 picture, Quicksilver is motion blurred, not focal blurred. My point is, that unless the panel represents a
camera, this image is inaccurate within the confines of the physical reality of the story. Now, no one
cares because we get the blur as an iconographic symbol that says, "He is moving really fast".
Bottom line, it's all within the reason of the users'(Quicksliver) abilities. Mask squinting is not within Spider-Man's abilities which for the comics' sake, is where E's problem lies.
Quicksilver does not have the ability spontaneously blur himself. His motion blur does not lie within his abilities, and only makes physical sense if the panel represents a camera. Yet any attempts to claim the blur is 'unrealistic' or a poor story telling device will land on deaf ears because it so effectively communicates what's happening in the comic with no explanation.
yes, I get it's supposed to be a writing tool but within the tone of Spider-Man's story, how exactly is it justified? DSF made a point about japanese anime/manga using certain tools to express a characters emotions. And in those certain stories or with certain characters, it's perfectly fine because those tools are being used as deturrent's to keep the reader from taking the story too serious or to lighten a situation which works for that stories parameters.
Style and tone of story determines what sort of storytelling techniques are used. It would probably be inappropriate for an artist like Travis Charest, who draws such photo-realistic images, to use mask-squinting, while an artist like Cully Hamner or Stuart Immonen, with their fluid styles, could do so easily. By the same token, an artist like Frank Cho, who draws in a very grounded, realistic sense, gets away with having crazy talking animals in LIBERTY MEADOWS, so he can mask-squint to his heart's content. Yet, that aspect of his style would be inappropriate for THE MIGHTY AVENGERS. And maybe Cully Hamner or Stuart Immonen may refuse to use mask-squinting without changing their style because it might make a moment to cute. And maybe Travis Charest might use mask-squinting to show that some is 'off' within the reality of the story.
The point is, mask-squinting is justified by the artist-as-storyteller when drawing his comic. If he uses it poorly, it will detract, and it will immerse if used well.
You've said it is a matter of style yourself: it's okay in MANGA but not in western comics. Why? In the manga, do the physical laws of cloth take on different properties? Of course not. It's because the tone and style allow for it. As I've pointed out above, any artist can justify any tone or style if they wish to.
take Cowboy Bebop for example. Great story, great characters, great setting. As comical of a character as Edward is, not once is she seen becoming this outrageous inner sakura type monster or pounding Spike with a huge hammer in suggestion of her frustration towards Spike or Ein. Within that stories parameters, would simply not work because the story is taking itself seriously and it wants you to as well. The director uses other tools to lighten the mood, such as Edwards quirkiness or a minor problem treated with a light hearted gesture to show frustration. But it's funny and it makes you laugh and all the while your heart's still pumping because the situation is still tense. But still you get that one little moment to yourself to show that it's okay for the characters to be a little peeved and not just be this one-sided generic hero who will overcome all odds. No, people feel diffferent emotions regardless of the situation at hand.
I don't know how Spider-Man is written now, but back in the day I know the stories were serious one's. You put something like mask squinting into the equation and it assumingly ruins the mood for the reader and even the overall tone of the story. "Harry dies of an overdose and Spider-Man's mask contorts to show he is crying and sad." I don't know about you but that seems a bit left of my testicles. I don't know if this is E's argument and I won't assume it is, but that's my problem with Mask Squinting.
That is a problem with the
artist's choice on how to tell the story, and
not the expressive tool that is mask-squinting.
In a light-hearted Spidey comic meant for 6 year olds, people would have no problem with mask-squinting. What if Cully Hamner drew it?
If this argument were solely relegated to, "I think the artist made a mistake by having Spidey's mask-squint here", there would be a difference of opinion. But this argument is about mask-squinting as a valid tool of expression.
And it clearly is. You've said so yourself.There is no fundamental difference between manga and marvel comics that say it can't be used. The idea that Marvel comics are perhaps 'darker' or more serious, simply indicates an ignorance of what is available in manga.
It is a valid tool for any artist to use as they see fit. Like any other. The argument that is in any way invalid in a general or logical basis is preposterous.
Bass is wrong about this. Let me explain Why.
So far Bass has replied 10 times i've had 2 (including this one)
Spider-man has had 0 PSONE classics on PSN
Spider-man has had 7 cartoons
Spider-man has been in 10 ps2 games as a main character.
Now using those numbers = 10 2 0 7 and 10 However 10 and 2 are one thread so I'll add them together. That Makes 12. So 12 0 7 10. Correct?
Using Alphabet numbers 1 = A and so on. Bass = 2 1 19 19
2 + 12 = 14 , 1 X 0 = 1 , 19 + 7 = 26 , 19 - 10 = 9 So 14 1 26 9. Switching back to letters that makes Nazi and Nazism = Wrong!
... IT'S ALL TRUE! I can't argue with such Vulcan logic! ;____________;
