|
| |
Credits :
Download :
Look for downloads on external sites:
Pokefinder.org
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 6 November 2006
Ah yeah. I had some wine so things really got spinning ;D
|
User Comment
Submitted by Helm on 5 November 2006
I understand, Ed. Your other comment then in this light, came out completely passive-agressive. You could have said 'Helm, you say the random dither hurts this, for me it makes it so much better!' and I'd say 'different strokes man, glad you like anyway' and that'd be the end of that. But you made a realy convoluted multi-part statement about aesthetics and whatnot.
And I didn't say pure ordered-dither throughout. I was mentioning a middle ground like the more recent Whale (Whale) which while I understand won't move you as such (does a self-portrait have the obligation to move anyone other than the artist himself?) you can see ordered-into-seemingly-random dithers. I agree noise gives off different textures than ordered dither, and both have their place. |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 5 November 2006
Helm. To cut things short. I like this picture. In fact this is one of few you made recently that really moved me.
The "pixeling" is just perfect. It really suits the motif (a boat, the ocean, an island the character standing in the foreground).
This picture makes me feel something, unlike a majority work I have ever seen on this machine. There is the randomness building a texture that would HARDLY been the same if you had made it with ordered dithering.
It really made me remember one of our own members TMT (and his picture):
Girl on the Beach
...Which at time was considered digitized due to the lack of ordered dithering.
Anyway. For me the complete notion that putting everything under the same raster we have seen for the past 15 years is not something I salute.
For me, as the interpreter of the work it would spoil this image.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Helm on 5 November 2006
| I never expected to have to defend my right to not like my own technique in one of my old pieces, but I guess anything goes if you belong to a group aptly named 'The Post-Moderns'. |
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 5 November 2006
Great response Helm, that was a really heavy punch! Oh no, Ed is knocked out! Will he have enough strength on the return match to pull out his secret weapon, the lethal mumbo-jumbo? Probably!
Meanwhile, watch out for the fight between Joe and one of the sexy chicks by Mirage, a very promising match where we expect a lot of greasy bloodstains and a few purple eyes! |
User Comment
Submitted by Helm on 5 November 2006
"The complete notion of " a best approach" seem to lack to the notion of a picture filling certain needs."
This sentence seems to lack the notion (sic) that words put in order must make a reasonable amount of sense.
If you mean to say that a single, so-called objective approach to using a technique (dithering, in this case) neglects that every different piece of art strives to fulfill different needs that may or may not benefit from that single approach, that's another thing.
To which I agree. But do you mean that? I am not sure I understand you.
Where I say 'best approach' I don't mean for you or anyone else. Far it be from me to dictate objectivism in art. I was saying the best approach [in my opinion, for my art] to pixelling [semi-realist] art like this as far as dithering goes is to use random elements in a controlled fashion just like ordered elements. There's careless (my dithering on this piece) and there's seemingly-random but ordered (in my opinion the optimal way to dither on such pieces). Maximising the potency of the picture elements on the screen, by finite control of location and connection is a boon for those that have few of them [picture elements], and few combinations of colors on them, to portray items that symbolise real-life relevancy.
"Sorry But I think the complete notion "Noise is just too careless for this sort of art." really ridicules all the rest of the work as nothing more than pure crap."
I don't see how.
"What ever happened to the emotional response, the choice. The careful measure?"
Whatever happened to not supposing before checking for clarifications? It would save you the trouble of making pompous statements that are disconnected from reality.
I am not in control of the emotional response my art has on people, nor do I check up on them to know what the response was. Just as long as there was some. My method of making art is solipsistic, I do not concern myself with external issues when I am making it. When it's done, it might or might not be ready to be released into a social context, and that brings upon it a different set of semiotic relations, but ones which I don't agonise over. I've done my part in making my art with honesty, vision (however humble the vision might seem to others) and technical control.
It was exactly the lack of technical control in this old picture, that I find not up to my standard today, as most artists feel on their old work. That was what my comment was about, and the superfuluous commentary you present seems to serve other, asinine ends.
" "this ... art..." ?????"
What about this art? |
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 4 November 2006
| Helm, you just got PWNED by Ed! \;D/ |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 4 November 2006
The complete notion of " a best approach" seem to lack to the notion of a picture filling certain needs.
Sorry But I think the complete notion "Noise is just too careless for this sort of art." really ridicules all the rest of the work as nothing more than pure crap. What ever happened to the emotional response, the choice. The careful measure?
"this ... art..." ?????
|
User Comment
Submitted by Helm on 7 August 2006
Thank you for the comments. Especially, Ben, I appreciate you going into detail. I am not really a fan of noise dither any more, and I believe the best approach is of 50% gradiations with ordered checkerboard dither pattern and then just 'styledither' (see Ptoing's work) to ease it off. Noise is just too careless for this sort of art.
I agree some things don't read well in the background, and also that the composition isn't all that.
Jailbird: hehe, thank you. It survived mcoling mostly intact, although I'd still love a few more highlights and definition here and there. Didn't know you frequented Pixel Joint. Perhaps also Pixelopolis? |
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 7 August 2006
| Some time ago I've met with a previous version of this picture on Pixel Joint and I really liked it. Looks really smooth on C64. Way to go, Helm! |
User Comment
Submitted by leonofsgr on 6 August 2006
| great background! and strong warrior colors ;_) |
User Comment
Submitted by Zeldin on 6 August 2006
| Poli oreo... maresi... ;-) |
User Comment
Submitted by Helm on 6 August 2006
Thanks. This is old art as the signature says, only recently mcol-ed, so a lot of the tech in this aren't exactly top form, especially the noise dither.
Not sure what triangle you're speaking of. So I guess not deliberate. |
User Comment
Submitted by Tch on 6 August 2006
Pretty good!
That triangle is deliberate? ;) |
|
|
|
 | Search CSDb |
|
| Navigate | |
|
| Detailed Info | |
|
| Fun Stuff | |
· Goofs
· Hidden Parts
· Trivia
|
|
| Forum | |
|
| Support CSDb | |
|
 |  |
|
8.7/10 (11 votes) 