Custom Cover Art Thread

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

The basic plot of both is the same:

A young cop goes undercover into the {insert counter-culture} scene.

theres a million undercover cop movies.. these 2 dont resemble each other in any way,, because theres an undercover cop it means there the same movie? if you want to compare Point Break to something it would be the Town just from seeing the trailer alone... Fast and the Furious is about teenagers racing cars.. Point Break is about surfers who rob banks and follow where the waves are going to be, stay MIA for a while then rob more banks

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Cliff

If we're throwing votes in here, I'm gonna have to side with dvdmike... and for exactly the same reasoning behind your friendly criticism. dvdmike's back has a finished, professional look and layout. His credit and copyright blocks are dead on and his use of logos is both accurate and (one of the biggest blunders I see with custom covers) the RIGHT SIZE. He's using the correct specs grid for Fox Home Entertainment and if you told me that his cover was the official artwork for the upcoming Star Wars Blu-ray, I'd have zero hesitation believing that. Yours... looks like a custom cover. You're essentially using the Warner Bros/Sony specs grid for a Fox movie, which is a big pet peeve of mine.

If I compare this to your Wall Street or Machete covers, the differences are even more obvious. They're good for what they are, but they are unmistakably homemade. If we just focus on your Machete cover for a moment, the R-Restricted logo is far too large, it's a logo that a studio would never use on a major new release, the running time is waaaayy off (it's 105 minutes), the credit block is wrong (the film was directed by Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis) and I find the spacing of the lettering to be too identical so there's no clear delineation between a person's first and last name and that same last name and the next person's first name (see ROBERT DE NIRO MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ JESSICA ALBA JEFF FAHEY). You also have a Dolby TrueHD logo on there, when Fox uses DTS-HD Master exclusively. These are the faulty details that scream 'homemade' to me. (another one is throwing logos on the back that don't belong just to fill space- such as covers that contain all of the various sound formats when only one is present on the disc... for example, I don't understand why you have an "NTSC" logo on your Braveheart cover).

So while I could agree that dvdmike might need to take an extra moment or two to really refine the composition of his images and text (and I would stress the word "refine"), I think his eye toward making the back cover look 'real' is one of his greatest strengths as a designer. You're absolutely correct when you say that it's the back cover that requires the most attention and, to my eye, dvdmike gives more than due attention to all the little details that make a cover look 'right.' You can hurry a design all you want if it still looks good in the end.

Your right about the refining, I do go back to covers all the time and fiddle.
I am looking at it as a good thing that Star Wars is a ways off, as I can really fiddle

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Doesn't this all presuppose that you want a custom cover to be indistinguishable from a retail version? With UPC and everything?

I personally don't really want that. It's not so much "right" as it is "like a retail one" that you're talking about.

You're right... for some yes and for some no. But when I see something that looks like it could be the 'official' artwork in a perfect retail word (which is a cover that might be indistinguishable from a retail version), that conveys, to me, a cover that a lot of time, effort, and thought went into.

I certainly understand the creative desire to do something unique and outside the studio branded packaging (I did a set of Matrix covers a few years ago that were designed to be printed on inkjet transparencies and used with clear cases so you could completely see through them), but (again to me) a custom cover should still strive to be professional looking and have a certain polish to it (it's the same reason it's not ok to use low resolution jpgs or nobody wants to print at 72 or 150dpi). Everyone still wants these covers to look like they were professionally designed and printed. Remember, the custom cover hobby didn't begin because people hated the backs of the studio designed covers, but rather because we all hated what they were sometimes doing with the fronts. Looking at your covers (which are quite good, btw) you're still (consciously or not) emulating official studio covers with the placement and sizes of various logos, the spine alignment, credit and feature blocks, etc... Where you and dvdmike really align is that I could see your Hellboy covers sitting on store shelves (maybe inside a slipcover that had all the copyright and UPC info). It has that polish and high level of quality that, and once again YMMV, I really appreciate in a custom cover.

[mikey ra]

Does anyone have a cover for Falling Down that I can use as a substitute for the digibook case? Thanks!!!!

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Thanks for the indirect compliment. I think where I do keep things looking like "retail" stuff is where I see them most--on the spines. I want them to blend in with my other covers, and yes, I guess that means I want it to be indistinguishable.

BLEND!!! That's a perfect descriptor of what I think the best custom covers do... They blend. They don't call attention to themselves as custom jobs. I'll give you a perfect example of a set of custom covers that are about as far away from what the studio gave, but I think still maintain that perfect blended quality... The original Zinema Bond series covers. Those were made by a guy essentially saying to the studios, "Here's a better way to do what you're doing." You throw barcodes on those and they're ready for retail.

A lot of customs out there don't pay attention to all those little details that make a custom blend to the point where you no longer realize it's a custom cover. They throw a dozen different unrelated logos on the back, they get the aspect ratio wrong (although even officials do that sometimes), they can't think of something to fill a space so they insert a giant Blu-ray logo... They end up looking more like bootlegs and you know those covers when you see them.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Cliff

BLEND!!! That's a perfect descriptor of what I think the best custom covers do... They blend. They don't call attention to themselves as custom jobs. I'll give you a perfect example of a set of custom covers that are about as far away from what the studio gave, but I think still maintain that perfect blended quality... The original Zinema Bond series covers. Those were made by a guy essentially saying to the studios, "Here's a better way to do what you're doing." You throw barcodes on those and they're ready for retail.

A lot of customs out there don't pay attention to all those little details that make a custom blend to the point where you no longer realize it's a custom cover. They throw a dozen different unrelated logos on the back, they get the aspect ratio wrong (although even officials do that sometimes), they can't think of something to fill a space so they insert a giant Blu-ray logo... They end up looking more like bootlegs and you know those covers when you see them.

That's what I go for, you should look at it and realise it's a Warner cover. But not a normal boring Warner cover

[DGates01]

[QUOTE=Cliff;3682168]

He's using the correct specs grid for Fox Home Entertainment and if you told me that his cover was the official artwork for the upcoming Star Wars Blu-ray, I'd have zero hesitation believing that. Yours... looks like a custom cover. You're essentially using the Warner Bros/Sony specs grid for a Fox movie, which is a big pet peeve of mine.

I appreciate the criticism, and you won't see me having a temper tantrum because of it.

In regards to the Star Wars cover, I was showing an example of proper placement of text, blocks, etc, in regards to the background. You don't cover up a great image if you don't have to. It wasn't worth taking the time to make it look official, I wanted to show how to make it look better, which I did.

As for the Machete cover, again, I appreciate your feedback. But I think you're getting lost in the minutiae. It's a solid design job. And I'm not trying to make it identical to the retail version, because, it's not going to the retail market, or the counterfeit market (which I'm feel that maybe some of these covers might be ending up in).

With Machete and Wall Street 2, I've made original mock-up covers that don't even exist yet. That's the fun of it. I'm not just moving around stuff from a previous cover.

Again, thanks for the input.

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Doesn't this all presuppose that you want a custom cover to be indistinguishable from a retail version? With UPC and everything?

Indeed. And what if you take the time to do all that and the cover still blows?

[CrEd424]

I've been in this thread for 3 years now and i've seen great artists come and go but for those that are here i'd like to see what all you guys could do with a cover for "The Social Network" theres so many ways of tackling a cover about facebook and the movie about it im sure everyone would have something different and i'd like to see what everyone decided to do kind of a non official competition if any of you guys are up for it if not thats okay just throwing the idea out there.

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Cliff

If I compare this to your Wall Street or Machete covers, the differences are even more obvious. They're good for what they are, but they are unmistakably homemade.

I take no offense to that. But maybe we're confusing customizing with replicating. My first concern is a cover that is pleasing to the eye, with everything seeming to go where it should. The smaller details are of secondary importance. I've seen it the other way around. A person can nail the the technical details, but have no real design skills. Those covers, to me, look the worst.

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Then you find it a good corner and take a percentage of its profits.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by DGates01

As for the Machete cover, again, I appreciate your feedback. But I think you're getting lost in the minutiae. It's a solid design job. And I'm not trying to make it identical to the retail version, because, it's not going to the retail market, or the counterfeit market (which I'm feel that maybe some of these covers might be ending up in).

But see, to me, it's the minutiae that can destroy a good design. Look, if someone is anal-retentive enough to:
a) be bothered by the cover the studio designed
b) design their own complete cover - front to back
c) find good paper stock (or photo paper) that will aid in great looking covers
and
d) size and cut covers to the appropriate size

then, don't you think the minutiae is important? I mean, you're so picky that you go to the trouble to design, print and trim your own covers, but not so picky that you care that the stuff that you're printing is accurate or well thought out?

Originally Posted by DGates01

I take no offense to that. But maybe we're confusing customizing with replicating. My first concern is a cover that is pleasing to the eye, with everything seeming to go where it should.

And that's my point. An NTSC logo shouldn't really appear on a Blu-ray cover. It's filler. It's minutiae that's aware that it's minutiae. It exists ONLY to be minutiae. Having the wrong running time or misusing a TrueHD logo serves no purpose on the cover, so why is it there? To ME, that's a sign it's NOT a solid design job, because the design, while being visually intriguing, still has to serve a purpose. Otherwise, what's the point of putting any information on it? I'll give you an example... If you look at dvdmike's Star Wars cover, he DOES have a TrueHD logo in the specs grid. Now, just having called you out for having a TrueHD logo on Machete and telling you that Fox uses DTS-HD Master exclusively, this would seem at odds with that complaint, wouldn't it? But I can guarantee you (without ever even speaking to him and based solely on the quality of the covers I've seen here) that that is a deliberate choice because dvdmike is taking into account Lucasfilm's relationship with Dolby that this might be the rare case where Fox uses TrueHD instead. That's a guy who's really thought this through. He's not just moving stuff around from a previous cover. Everything about what he's done is well thought out. He may benefit from other opinions on occasion, but I don't think he's that off the mark.

Originally Posted by DGates01

The smaller details are of secondary importance. I've seen it the other way around. A person can nail the the technical details, but have no real design skills. Those covers, to me, look the worst.

But can't you have both? A pleasing/creative design AND getting all of the details just so? Getting the tech specs and the branding of the disc right is far more of a design challenge than someone photoshopping "picture, picture, box of text, picture, picture, picture, box of text, picture, picture, box with credits, giant logos." Trust me, it's much more difficult to mirror what would appear like a genuine studio release while developing unique creative concepts to blend together with. I find dvdmike's covers to be very close to that goal. Like I said, he's most certainly in the area of 'refining' with these. Another example, on his Phantom Menace cover... I would probably slide the back image just a hair more to the right to clear Anakin of the Specs Grid. It's a minor slide; probably 20 pixels. But it's not a poor design by any definition of the word. The design (even as minimalist as it is right now without the special features) looks finished. You could print that up today and have it ready on the shelf. That tells me its a good cover.

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Cliff

And that's my point. An NTSC logo shouldn't really appear on a Blu-ray cover. It's filler. It's minutiae that's aware that it's minutiae.

You are correct. But you're referencing my second Blu-ray cover ever. Strike that up to beginner's ignorance. That cover was more of a response to a similar cover that had design issues.

[s00perd00per]

Originally Posted by Cliff

But see, to me, it's the minutiae that can destroy a good design. Look, if someone is anal-retentive enough to:
a) be bothered by the cover the studio designed
b) design their own complete cover - front to back
c) find good paper stock (or photo paper) that will aid in great looking covers
and
d) size and cut covers to the appropriate size

then, don't you think the minutiae is important? I mean, you're so picky that you go to the trouble to design, print and trim your own covers, but not so picky that you care that the stuff that you're printing is accurate or well thought out?




And that's my point. An NTSC logo shouldn't really appear on a Blu-ray cover. It's filler. It's minutiae that's aware that it's minutiae. It exists ONLY to be minutiae. Having the wrong running time or misusing a TrueHD logo serves no purpose on the cover, so why is it there? To ME, that's a sign it's NOT a solid design job, because the design, while being visually intriguing, still has to serve a purpose. Otherwise, what's the point of putting any information on it? I'll give you an example... If you look at dvdmike's Star Wars cover, he DOES have a TrueHD logo in the specs grid. Now, just having called you out for having a TrueHD logo on Machete and telling you that Fox uses DTS-HD Master exclusively, this would seem at odds with that complaint, wouldn't it? But I can guarantee you (without ever even speaking to him and based solely on the quality of the covers I've seen here) that that is a deliberate choice because dvdmike is taking into account Lucasfilm's relationship with Dolby that this might be the rare case where Fox uses TrueHD instead. That's a guy who's really thought this through. He's not just moving stuff around from a previous cover. Everything about what he's done is well thought out. He may benefit from other opinions on occasion, but I don't think he's that off the mark.



But can't you have both? A pleasing/creative design AND getting all of the details just so? Getting the tech specs and the branding of the disc right is far more of a design challenge than someone photoshopping "picture, picture, box of text, picture, picture, picture, box of text, picture, picture, box with credits, giant logos." Trust me, it's much more difficult to mirror what would appear like a genuine studio release while developing unique creative concepts to blend together with. I find dvdmike's covers to be very close to that goal. Like I said, he's most certainly in the area of 'refining' with these. Another example, on his Phantom Menace cover... I would probably slide the back image just a hair more to the right to clear Anakin of the Specs Grid. It's a minor slide; probably 20 pixels. But it's not a poor design by any definition of the word. The design (even as minimalist as it is right now without the special features) looks finished. You could print that up today and have it ready on the shelf. That tells me its a good cover.

You seem to be really knowledgeable about this stuff. I think you should also post your covers if you have them.

[bsmith6470]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

There's a difference between "I don't think that works, why don't you try this?" and "That sucks."

A freakin' men!!

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Cliff

But can't you have both? A pleasing/creative design AND getting all of the details just so?

Yes, I believe you can. Using the exact technical content and leaving it the same size from the cover in question, I've revised my revision to show you what I was alluding to the whole time. The smart placement of text/logos/technical boxes as they pertain to the image(s).

Mike won't mind because he has me on Ignore.

Has this made it any clearer?

[bartlettphoto]

Secretary... comments and complaints welcome. Click to DL

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by bartlettphoto

Secretary... comments and complaints welcome.

Nicely done! That movie was the only time Gyllenhaal looked sexy.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by s00perd00per

You seem to be really knowledgeable about this stuff. I think you should also post your covers if you have them.

Alright, these are some DVD covers I made about 5 years ago. I haven't really made any Blu-ray covers lately (not really enough time other than some conversions from horrible cases like The Office or Battlestar Galactica).

[DGates01]

Originally Posted by Cliff

These are some DVD covers I made about 5 years ago.

I'm digging the Cliffhanger cover. I've seen similar fronts before, but the back looks unique to yours.