Your video, A Speed-Painting Video - The Life Of A Woman, Birth to Death, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

...and nobody called it a speed painting! Yay!

Your video, "The Bear" - @Lann's Miniature Speed Painting, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 9 Badge!

Nice to see an actual speed painting and not just a timelapse of a normal painting.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Speed Painter, Speed Painting, Painting, Mind Blowing, Guess what it is, Talent' to 'Speed Painter, Speed Painting, Painting, d westry, anderson cooper' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Enzoblue:

It's not speed painting if you just timelapse it.


Point taken. And what do I know, there's a slice of lemon on my brain.

It's not speed painting if you just timelapse it.

I've deleted the apostrophe but added speed painting to the Tags.
So does this make you happy or angry?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

No apostrophe. Thank you for not calling this speed painting.

No apostrophe. Thank you for not calling this speed painting.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^COriolanus:
Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?

The one I have been reading about is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.


It's wrong that Dark Matter is just some wacky thing created because of the maths. It is observed, through its gravitational interaction. Just because it doesn't interact electromagnetically doesn't mean it's invisible. It's also wrong that Dark Matter behaves the exact opposite of real matter. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and we already know of particles that interact through one force of nature and not through others. To posit a new fundamental particle that could fit the Dark Matter profile is not really that far fetched. There are even candidates obtained through Supersymmetry that may or may not provide the right answer. I don't find this messy at all, and frankly, Nature doesn't care if you think its rules are messy or not.

Also, if you don't like messiness, MOND is really not the right answer for you. Modified Newtonian Dynamics is an interesting concept with some interesting results for their own sake, and it may still ultimately prove correct. The idea that extrapolation from high gravitational fields to low ones might be unsound is something that should not be dismissed. But so far, the data are not in MOND's favour.

>> ^COriolanus:

Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?


The one I have been reading about is MOND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND

There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.

I was never the one who had to draw all the time, and although I do go through phases of drawing more, I'd have to say no. I think I prefer the theory to the actual practice!

As for people painting the Sistine Chapel on phones, well some people manage to get good results even from Microsoft Paint, or the humble Etch-a-sketch... that would be people with far too much time on their hands if you ask me!

I did see a video of someone doing a really cool piece on an ipad, and now I wish I'd kept the link to sift (although it might be here already).In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Digital finger painting is strangely both more liberating and more restrictive. I'm still messing about with about 5 different apps trying to find one I could call 'user friendly'. On my home computer I have a lovely Cintiq -- you can see the image and draw on it with a stylus. I quite dig that. On my phone and my Ipad I can draw with my finger or a stylus. The finger painting is more awkward in some ways but to get the ipad/pod to pick up the motions of the stylus you have to press really hard! It's a bit weird. There's no real touch-sensitivity like on the Cintiq -- various apps try to simulate the look of it with tapering and speed = line width contols. So far not so good for me. But OTHER people are painting the freaking Sistine Chapel on their phones.. so the problem is probably not the tools but the user, ahem - me!
Still, I persevere! I swear, had I never seen the beautiful artwork people make on their phones, I never would have considered it possible. But I am intrigued.. and it IS fast! I can then upload those sketches to polish in a proper graphic program or just enjoy their speed-painting loosensess.
Are you a doodler?

Digital finger painting is strangely both more liberating and more restrictive. I'm still messing about with about 5 different apps trying to find one I could call 'user friendly'. On my home computer I have a lovely Cintiq -- you can see the image and draw on it with a stylus. I quite dig that. On my phone and my Ipad I can draw with my finger or a stylus. The finger painting is more awkward in some ways but to get the ipad/pod to pick up the motions of the stylus you have to press really hard! It's a bit weird. There's no real touch-sensitivity like on the Cintiq -- various apps try to simulate the look of it with tapering and speed = line width contols. So far not so good for me. But OTHER people are painting the freaking Sistine Chapel on their phones.. so the problem is probably not the tools but the user, ahem - me!
Still, I persevere! I swear, had I never seen the beautiful artwork people make on their phones, I never would have considered it possible. But I am intrigued.. and it IS fast! I can then upload those sketches to polish in a proper graphic program or just enjoy their speed-painting loosensess.
Are you a doodler?

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Well that sounds like fun Speculating wildly, since I totally lack the experience for an informed comment, I would expect that the ipad might be a little like water colour painting, in that a looser approach and taking what you get might work well but if you try to get every pixel exactly right you would be better off with another medium... and also that a few stray splotches or rough edges might not hurt the final product. Do you use a big touch pad on your main computer?

As for what they were smoking in the 70s, well in my parts it was only a few extremely mellow hippies in the hills, smoking so much weed that they hadn't realised the 60s were over In terms of animation though, I wonder if the 70s were the result of digesting the trippy LSD inspired experiments of the 60s and reacting to them, without perhaps actually being chemically enhanced. I wasn't yet 10 when the 70s ended though, so it's yet more wild speculation on my part.

>> ^Throbbin:

Great pic.
The older, crankier part of me wants to ask why he didn't just do it on paper though.
The cranky part of me wonders why he spent so long painting a picture of anything to do with Star Wars Episodes I-III.