[CSDb] - User Forums - Weapons of Choice?

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > C64 Pixeling > Weapons of Choice?

2005-03-20 09:20

Bizzmo
Account closed

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 82

Weapons of Choice?

Been away from the scene for some time, and was wondering what the latest tools people are using for GFX these days?

I did most of my work on Artist64 with a nifty neos mouse.

... 48 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....

2005-05-09 23:39

Wildstar

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 50

Quote: I think you are totaly right here.

It has never appealed to me to use a PC for making C64 graphics.
It´s like using a car to finish the marathon. ;P
That´s also the reason why I don´t like convertors of any kind.
But I guess it´s a sign of the times,that only the "result" counts.
Whoever said "the journey is more important than the destination"?

I like to play the game without ´steroids´ though.
(Besides,I have to keep myself occupied :P)

I have nothing personal against someone who uses the PC to make C64 graphics but skill, time and talent needs to be involved. A good graphics artist of any kind should be able to pixel even in Photoshop or any other PC graphics tool and produce great pieces.

A graphician shouldn't need to pixel totally every piece of work BUT should be put in effort and often pixeling is involved to make a good piece whether it is done on the PC side or the C64 side BUT I don't think a quick slap together job really qualifies as showing good skill and talent.

I think the bottom line is quality. In the case of Hein and some of the top talented graphicians that I have seen, including DK, TCH and others - there is quality in their pieces.

I think it is the OVERALL end result that matters and that the job isn't "PhotoChopped" and actual work has gone into the piece.

2005-05-10 02:56

Deev

Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206

The way I see it is that there's basically two ways you can make C64 graphics on a PC

First of all you can hand draw an image at 320x200/160x200 (depening on the mode) on a blank screen, using the C64's palette and requiring all of the same skills needed as if you were using a native program, but with a few extra perks such as a high quality mouse, custom brushes, flexible zoom modes and so on.

The other alternative is where people either take some scanned image, or perhaps even an image they drew themselves, but at a high resolution and 32 bit colours. They then use a tool to 'downgrade' the image to the C64's resolution and palette and finally touch up any errors in a C64 editor.

The later, to me, seems like a total waste of time as you're not accomplishing anything on the C64 for youself, a tool is doing all of the work for you. Converting some scanned image using this kind of aproach seems to have become acceptable in some people's eyes when it's just for use in a demo, but unless it helps create strong theme of some sort, even that holds little appeal to my eyes. And if you're creating some great work on the PC, why then downgrade it to the C64 anyway?!

The first of the two examples I see as being completely different. A graphician decides where to set a pixel based on experience of what looks right to their eyes, combined with a knowledge of how to use the C64s features. The impression you have of how to use those pixels doesn't change significantly no matter which platform you're using. As I've said before on these forums, I don't believe my own pixelling would be improved just by using a PC tool to create it.

Until a couple of years ago I did everything the old fashioned way using C64 tools only, but I started to play around with some pixelling on the PC and I have to say I find the whole process much more enjoyable. I think the main advantage is the improved functionality of modern day software makes you feel to have much more freedom, you can easily make shapes, create curves, move elements around etc. All of this which ultimately leads to a better composition.

I still use C64 tools for most of my recent releases, though that's only because I know some people still believe that using a PC is cheating. This isn't something I agree with myself, however. Certainly if I was beaten in a compo by someone who had hand-pixelled a picture on a PC when I had created my work on the C64, I wouldn't feel I had been hard done by.

sorry this got a little long :)

2005-05-10 04:44

Wildstar

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 50

Quote: The way I see it is that there's basically two ways you can make C64 graphics on a PC

First of all you can hand draw an image at 320x200/160x200 (depening on the mode) on a blank screen, using the C64's palette and requiring all of the same skills needed as if you were using a native program, but with a few extra perks such as a high quality mouse, custom brushes, flexible zoom modes and so on.

The other alternative is where people either take some scanned image, or perhaps even an image they drew themselves, but at a high resolution and 32 bit colours. They then use a tool to 'downgrade' the image to the C64's resolution and palette and finally touch up any errors in a C64 editor.

The later, to me, seems like a total waste of time as you're not accomplishing anything on the C64 for youself, a tool is doing all of the work for you. Converting some scanned image using this kind of aproach seems to have become acceptable in some people's eyes when it's just for use in a demo, but unless it helps create strong theme of some sort, even that holds little appeal to my eyes. And if you're creating some great work on the PC, why then downgrade it to the C64 anyway?!

The first of the two examples I see as being completely different. A graphician decides where to set a pixel based on experience of what looks right to their eyes, combined with a knowledge of how to use the C64s features. The impression you have of how to use those pixels doesn't change significantly no matter which platform you're using. As I've said before on these forums, I don't believe my own pixelling would be improved just by using a PC tool to create it.

Until a couple of years ago I did everything the old fashioned way using C64 tools only, but I started to play around with some pixelling on the PC and I have to say I find the whole process much more enjoyable. I think the main advantage is the improved functionality of modern day software makes you feel to have much more freedom, you can easily make shapes, create curves, move elements around etc. All of this which ultimately leads to a better composition.

I still use C64 tools for most of my recent releases, though that's only because I know some people still believe that using a PC is cheating. This isn't something I agree with myself, however. Certainly if I was beaten in a compo by someone who had hand-pixelled a picture on a PC when I had created my work on the C64, I wouldn't feel I had been hard done by.

sorry this got a little long :)

I use the PC but using VICE emulation and C= software. It SOLVES two issues for me.

A) The content is already C= graphics format and B) I solve the issue to getting the content TO my group members ALOT quicker as I don't "currently" have an effective means of getting the GFX work to my group mates via my actual 128D over the net quickly. The 3rd benefits comes with the fact that I have ALOT of disk space.

The benefit is in this factor that ALONE is beneficial. The beauty to me is seeing it APROX. like it suppose to look as I am making it. This make development easier BUT I doubt it is really cheating in any sense AS I am still pixeling my graphics. I might do a little proof of concept work on the PC in MS Paint. The beauty in WHAT I do and how I do it IS that I can develop sprites, fonts, pics and all this on the PC via emulation and get it onto the web in a flash. Ok, I do save on load/save time with warp mode. But I don't think it is cheating per se. Except for in a time competition. Since I am not in a time competition and the time frame that I have to worry about is the basic due date of when the works need to be in.

2005-05-10 05:34

Dane
Account closed

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 421

I tried pixeling X-fli on my old c64. It didn't work, my sight was too bad to view it in in unzoomed mode. So I'm sticking to doing them in VICE.

2005-05-10 06:03

Wildstar

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 50

Quote: I tried pixeling X-fli on my old c64. It didn't work, my sight was too bad to view it in in unzoomed mode. So I'm sticking to doing them in VICE.

Doesn't the editor have a Zoom mode where you see the pixels in an enlarged form ?

I would say trying to pixel any work without zooming would be incredibly difficult.

2005-05-10 08:20

Hein

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933

I have to disagree with Deev on the 2nd way of creating gfx, especially if its for a demo.

Spending much time on detailed pixel work isnt something special anymore, because its just a matter of time. A good composition, theme or emotional matter is what I like more.

It's like watching the new Star Wars films, glorious visuals, but terrible script and story.

2005-05-10 12:31

Deev

Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206

Actually, I do kind of agree with you on this. What I was more saying I don't like is where someone will just wire a photo of some random girl, or perhaps some artwork from an advert, a book etc. that doesn't really fit any purpose and is not their own creation. Another example of what I don't like would be where someone might create a logo by simply wiring their favourite font, but creating a logo on a PC when it displays some interesting design (even if it incorperates that font) can be good. I think using more modern technologies to produce C64 graphics is okay and I certainly don't think we should always stay in the stoneage setting everything by pixel by pixel, but I think what you create should be for a purpose and there should still be some creative process involved.

I guess this is probably a third way to produce C64 graphics on a PC :)

I don't believe this sort of thing should be allowed in graphics compos mind you, although a seperate compo where the graphician is judged entirely on their ability to create an interesting composition would be quite interesting.

2005-05-10 14:53

Dane
Account closed

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 421

Quote: Doesn't the editor have a Zoom mode where you see the pixels in an enlarged form ?

I would say trying to pixel any work without zooming would be incredibly difficult.

Sure, it has zoom-mode, but I want so see it in original size as well to get it right. Just too blurry on an ordinary tv.

2005-05-10 17:12

Twoflower

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 434

Is it just me, or is this discussion about as obsolete as Reflex-demos? I guess people on this scene have different views on how to make graphics, and whether or not it is the originality or the resulting artwork which weights heaviest and so on. But let's face it - why don't accept the scene as it is. If someone firmly believes that pixeling an entire picture on a limited platform (which the C-64 is) is teh shit, then let them hold on to their values. If someone believes that porting fonts and Vallejo-pics or photos from an Elle magazine is teh shit, then let them believe that. Noone should try to force values of what art should be about upon others, that's something which grows individually and over time. Let's accept each attempt to make art as art, and then judge the results according to our beliefs. I may not like certain graphics made for this platform, but I sure respect their intentions and dedication.

Yeah, and this is a boring conclusion to a pointless thread, i'm very well aware of that.

2005-05-10 17:27

Wildstar

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 50

Quote: Sure, it has zoom-mode, but I want so see it in original size as well to get it right. Just too blurry on an ordinary tv.

Ok, I get what you are saying. When I set the PAL Emulation settings (not the video mode setting as it this setting I am referring to can be used in the NTSC video mode), I can't see the individual pixels as well as it gets blurry.

I know what you mean because I use it in VICE for both PAL and NTSC mode for giving me the "TV-ish" feel as EVEN on NTSC TVs/Monitors will have the same blur. I know what a Commodore looks like on an NTSC 1702 monitors. Since it is the closest to the look and feel to TV, I use it to see how it would look aproximately on a TV but I don't use this setting during the creation of the works EXCEPT for viewing it but I view the pic in full in this setting but I ALSO view the pic in full without this setting.

Ok, I'm somewhat anal retentive in my getting the works to look how I want it to look. I probably do more of this stuff than some graphicians do.

Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next

Refresh

Subscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search for in
All times are CET.

Search CSDb

Advanced

Users Online

Didi/Laxity
Guests online: 124

Top Demos

1 Next Level  (9.8)
2 Mojo  (9.7)
3 Coma Light 13  (9.7)
4 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
5 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
6 No Bounds  (9.6)
7 Uncensored  (9.6)
8 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
9 Memento Mori  (9.6)
10 Bromance  (9.5)

Top onefile Demos

1 It's More Fun to Com..  (9.7)
2 Party Elk 2  (9.7)
3 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
4 Copper Booze  (9.5)
5 TRSAC, Gabber & Pebe..  (9.5)
6 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
7 Wafer Demo  (9.5)
8 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
9 Quadrants  (9.5)
10 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)

Top Groups

1 Nostalgia  (9.3)
2 Oxyron  (9.3)
3 Booze Design  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 Crest  (9.3)

Top Original Suppliers

1 Black Beard  (9.7)
2 Derbyshire Ram  (9.5)
3 hedning  (9.2)
4 Baracuda  (9.1)
5 Jazzcat  (8.6)

Page generated in: 0.04 sec.