| |
Carrion
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 317 |
Who needs Timanthes anywy.
First of all... Timanthes rules it's a great tool.
... but lately I started to use a method/process using Photoshop to achieve 8bit pixel art. The technique gives you control over everything from dithering to color rams plus all PS tools/filters.
IMHO the results are amazing. I think It could be a ultimate converting tool or more precisely a great tool for prototyping/sketching.
The only problem for demoscene could be that results are IMO so good it's hard to tell if it's wired or not.
Take a look:
http://crrnpixels.tumblr.com/post/89843863323/using-photoshop-f..
To convert picture made by Made it took me 10 minutes.
more examples here
http://crrnpixels.tumblr.com/
Please keep in mind that in the examples on the blog no single pixel was put by me. All magic was done by Photoshop.
In next few days I'll post more on my blog describing the method itself. |
|
... 45 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1335 |
Big advantage of carrions method is that dither pattern can be anything - checkerboard was only example. You can use hatching, circles, waves - it's only a matter of experiments ;) BTW, I prefer Soft Light mode for this layer :P |
| |
Jok
Registered: Apr 2009
Posts: 11 |
my post will be offtopic a bit but it's good occasion to add few words ;)
pixel art is about pixeling
all this is about conversion - eventually you can name it pixel art look or something like that
I think that many people are using similar methods (unfortunately - from my point)
Effects are v. good and this is interesting topic but what satisfaction you can get from converting other people works?
What is challenging in c64 gfx to know machine restriction and develop your own creative methods to achieve best results and present your (own) vision in that environment
For example - What's stopping me from participating in c64 compos (because I do gfx on c64 from time to time) is that I have to compete with copies and conversions as equal.
So my opinion is as long as its your original work all methods are ok (but it's important to mentions them)
Creative reinterpretations would be ok too (but its tricky area) if access to sources/references is given.
Everything else should be forbidden or in different category.
This techniques could help to do in short time (at party ;) gfx (like logos, titles) for demo or other production. But as replacement of days/weeks of pixeling doesn't sounds good for me.
j. |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
@Jok: Using this technique doesn't stop you from making your own graphics. It just extends your toolset. |
| |
Flavioweb
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 463 |
I think this is just a tool and, for definition, can't be good or bad, it depends on how you use it.
If you make your own painted gfx, may be good... |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5086 |
this brings me to the times when PhotoShop came in, it was a terribly scandal, made too easy to make nice pictures :) |
| |
grip
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 8 |
I'm with Jok on this. There's nothing wrong with having decent tools to help you place your pixels, but this doesn't seem to be about placing pixels as much as it is about downsampling them to something the C64 can handle.
Still, a cool and useful tool. Not every single screen in a demo has to be painstakingly hand pixeled to be enjoyable. |
| |
awsm
Registered: Feb 2015
Posts: 13 |
I played around with the method a bit and it does work great for pixel art, but comes with some downsides too, so, as always, it is good when you know when and how to use it.
If you want to convert images and have more artistic freedom while you are in Photoshop then this method is another nice tool. Benefits are small if you want to create a logo with it though, pixel colors are a bit out of your hands and the adjustment layers often interfere with your hand drawn pixels.
Finally, the real work (at least for me) starts when it comes to adjusting the image to the colorclash, which is a beast on its own (and I haven't seen a PS plugin that does this in a good way yet).
For comparison I attached three images:
1. the top image is converted in Photoshop to 160x200 with 40% dither and pepto.
2. the middle image is converted using the new method, with some playing around with colors and dither styles (notice the 8x8 squares in the background while the face has 1x1 squares).
3. the bottom image is drawn by hand. Probably with the best results.
 |
| |
Linus
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 639 |
Wow, the third one is *really* impressive. Are you taking requests? ;) |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
if you use Gimp instead of photoshop, there is another dither option that gives an effect very similar to the one that appears in many Mirage images.
in PS you only have "diffusion" and "pattern"
Gimp offers another which IIRC is called "positional" which when a couple of us tested it was superior to the PS options. |
| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
Positional dithering actually works like carrion's checkerboard layer, but it uses addition rather than multiplication (overlay): A regular pattern of noise is added before quantisation. This causes some pixels to tend to be rounded up, and others will tend to be rounded down. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
