| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Release id #237162 : Tribute to Vangelis
@4gent,
1) feels you took those quotes out of context
2) I even said to 2 girls on the schoolyard when I was 9 that I'm never gonna have sex because its disgusting
3) Talent added so much of his own, that I consider it an original work, Vermeer traced outlines with pinhole camera, Talent used another work for reference I couldnt care less. |
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
@Forstbyte, you said that exactly:
"Everyone can see that this is 95% Vahid Ahmadi's original work"
so dear frostbyte, can you show us how easy is this, download whatever image from the net, convert to c64 while changing 5%, lets see what comes out :) |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
indeed, want to see that 5% work too :D |
| |
El Jefe @ X2024
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 68 |
Quote: @Forstbyte, you said that exactly:
"Everyone can see that this is 95% Vahid Ahmadi's original work"
so dear frostbyte, can you show us how easy is this, download whatever image from the net, convert to c64 while changing 5%, lets see what comes out :)
@Oswald: Again, its not about the abilities of someone, just about being honest with the c64 scene, about where Talent got his, in this case obvious "inspiration" for the pic.
Hope you can finally accept this without falling back into deny mode.
Shocker/Onslaught |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: @Oswald: Again, its not about the abilities of someone, just about being honest with the c64 scene, about where Talent got his, in this case obvious "inspiration" for the pic.
Hope you can finally accept this without falling back into deny mode.
Shocker/Onslaught
this is much more about the individuals trying to drag down talent, than about honesty or copying whatever you make up. |
| |
El Jefe @ X2024
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 68 |
Please forgive me Oswald, but I cannot see any hate, envy or dragging down involved ... much more, people are just expressing their opinions based on keen observations.
Shocker/Onslaught |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
@Oswald: I think you're dismissing the general Zeitgeist graphicians are confronted with at the moment. I don't think anyone has the intention to "drag down talent", but is in a quite sensible state because of what is happening to (especially graphic) art these days.
I think we (meaning you, me everyone who is not directly affected by the ongoing changes) should keep a "good faith" attitude towards either side of those discussions.
Especially in the C64 context I hope we can agree, that even if we argue we all want the "best" for our scene. I personally try to see dispute as a good thing. Mankind – and we as persons – can not evolve without dispute. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1380 |
I'm not a huge fan of demands for workstages, they do seem a bit accusatory to me. Also, there's no reason they'd exist (most tools don't autocreate them, so it's some work to hold on to them), and they're also eminently fakeable.
And, I'm somewhat bemused by comments on another production that "I can see a dither matrix, therefore this was wired" - y'all know that humans can do those too, right? Like, most dither algorithms were invented by a person in the first place?
Anyway, whatever the process was, this Vangelis image was beautifully executed, especially in the light of the restrictions involved. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
It would make a great tutorial. But maybe it's a trade secret. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1380 |
Oh I love *seeing* workstages, they're fascinating!
It's that whole "if you don't produce workstages then I know you were cheating" thing that I call bullshit on. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
The process from the original 3D work to the C64 version is a mystery to me, though I'm guessing there are quite some 'layers' involved. Same as for example Rembrandt works with at least 3 layers (dark underpainting, mid-tones, highlights). I wonder how that classical process would relate to this. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Oswald:
Quote:1) feels you took those quotes out of context
Fair enough. I can agree with you on that.
I don't have a horse in this race. I'm no graphician. I reacted here only because this lack of respect was shown. By an artist for a fellow artist. It made me sad. It made our world feel smaller and uglier. And I didn't like that. That's all. Guys, please don't take someone's hard work and just deny the author his very authorship. What's the point? Talent didn't claim he was the author of "a few photos from the internet", he didn't claim he was the author of the Zbrush model, so it's not like he ripped someone off, he just deliberately refused to recognize the true author. Why would anyone choose to do that? |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting ChristopherJamAlso, there's no reason they'd exist (most tools don't autocreate them, so it's some work to hold on to them), and they're also eminently fakeable.
Mh. That made me think about writing a "workstage creator tool".
1.) Remove dithering and leave huge single colored shapes
2.) Remove a shape
3.) repeat 2 until no more shapes left
Maybe AI could help with that process in step 1 to only remove parts of the dithering or to implement some random "mistakes" that then get "corrected" within 2-3 loop to make it look more realistic ;-) |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
“The artist's goal to add the own style and fill the work with spirit and emotions.”
“I used about 5-6 photos from net to create this original portrait that has the ethereal feel, that befit the sad case of the tribute and filled the pixels with life and soul to express my appreciation to Vangelis.”
These quotes are from Talent earlier in the discussion: https://csdb.dk/release/?id=237162&show=review
The original used here is built out of two images © ZBrush artist vahidahmadizb2016.
I see zero artistic effort in the C64 version. The nice dithering is there but as stated by several pixel artists in the release discussion, it does not look like man-made either.
It’s funny that ‘that white thing’ on the right side of the original model turns into a keyboard though. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
I love how on the C64 version orange pixels show up in place where there was skin of Vangelis' hand showing through his beard in the original. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quote: I love how on the C64 version orange pixels show up in place where there was skin of Vangelis' hand showing through his beard in the original.
Yes, if going into details you can find lots of artefacts that raise (ninja) eyebrows. |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 487 |
Well then. I mostly agree with Electric here. Though his craft and style does give it value to me.
But, as Electric exposed Talent’s denial of using 1 reference, I feel Talent was trying to trick us into believing otherwise. That is a very ugly lie in my book. And makes me question his other work, forever.
And there are many ‘respected’ artists who choose to claim the work, but not admitting it. I know quite a few who chose to hide it :)
What we do forget here is the public; we should avoid caring too much about opinions from 95% of the sceners. (E.g. I get feedback on my style from guys who wear the same clothes as in the 90s, case closed). |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting SanderWell then. I mostly agree with Electric here. Though his craft and style does give it value to me.
Yes, I've said it too and repeating: the dithering is very nice and creates very unusual realistic tones rarely seen on C64. Would love to see how they're done and see ppl implementing those methods in demo effects. Maybe something Censor can work on? However, these dithered tones (that are rather 'muddy' compared with normal C64 hand-made colour bursts) you can see in some officially converted images. |
| |
Frostbyte
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 171 |
FFS, wrote a LONG response to Oswald, and it went into binary heaven when submitting.
But I think I've already said everything I want to say, apart from the fact that Talent does have a talent - even if using some conversion aids, his graphics have a mind-bogglingly high quality to them. I just wish for a little bit of openness about the process, as the ever increasing choir also seems to do. And this is not just about Talent, it is about respect towards original authors of the SOURCE images, as well as judges (us, the scene) of the TARGET images as well across the whole C64 graphics scene.
My final words on this topic:
1) Be respectful towards the original author(s) and credit them where the SOURCE image has elements of their work
2) Be respectful towards your fellow sceners, especially fellow pixeling artists, and be open about the process how images were created. Let your fellow sceners decide if they care about every single pixel being pushed by hand, or using the aid of converters or AI or whatever modern high quality tools available.
3) If the above two sound like unreasonable demands, compare using someone else's image(s) as basis for your graphics to using someone else's music as basis for your SID tunes. Both are fine, as long as original artists are credited. For the latter it is given that we credit the original artists. For graphics, I still don't understand why this isn't the case. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
Perhaps even the dithering process may be not as complicated as people thought. I'm guessing there's two different conversions of the same image being used; each one having it's own attribute values within the automated conversion process. Then, a pixel-by-pixel grid is applied to those two conversions with the odd pixels 'active' in the first, and even pixels 'active' in the second. Then, you just place those two as layers on top of each other and you get the final image. If you place the same layer on top of itself and you offset it by a scanline, you get pretty basic conversion results which could very well be those initial two conversions that were used.
https://i.ibb.co/Ld2SXLQ/vangelis-dithering.png |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Electric: You Sir, shouldnt open your mouth too wide, Sir double standards. While you make pretty speeches, and try to harm Talent and his work, you realy should look at yourself and your so well organized ZOO Compitition, where only original work is allowed. Right?
Coltrane
Mixed Graphics Competition at Zoo 2015 : #1
But it has ofcourse advantages to be the organizer, disq other entries of wiring / copying while your own "work" goes through ;) |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Perhaps even the dithering process may be not as complicated as people thought. I'm guessing there's two different conversions of the same image being used; each one having it's own attribute values within the automated conversion process. Then, a pixel-by-pixel grid is applied to those two conversions with the odd pixels 'active' in the first, and even pixels 'active' in the second. Then, you just place those two as layers on top of each other and you get the final image. If you place the same layer on top of itself and you offset it by a scanline, you get pretty basic conversion results which could very well be those initial two conversions that were used.
https://i.ibb.co/Ld2SXLQ/vangelis-dithering.png
your post does not make any sense at all. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Perhaps even the dithering process may be not as complicated as people thought. I'm guessing there's two different conversions of the same image being used; each one having it's own attribute values within the automated conversion process. Then, a pixel-by-pixel grid is applied to those two conversions with the odd pixels 'active' in the first, and even pixels 'active' in the second. Then, you just place those two as layers on top of each other and you get the final image. If you place the same layer on top of itself and you offset it by a scanline, you get pretty basic conversion results which could very well be those initial two conversions that were used.
https://i.ibb.co/Ld2SXLQ/vangelis-dithering.png
its the inherent quality of ordered dithering (hand pixeled or ordered doesnt matter) that if you take every 2nd pixel you get a solid color :)
Do you know Floyd-Steinberg dithering? Automated process, still you can not do with it this. |
| |
Carrion
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 317 |
Peacemaker Thanks for posting this. I created this anim with passion :)
@Electric.
What is you goal? What is your crusade leads to? I dont expect D-Mage to do next images. Do you want other graphicians stop doing c64 stuff too? Then only you and "real" pixel artist remain on scene?
And yes, I understand all the arguments but for me demoscene is a place to share my passion with others. How they do it is their onw choice as long as we dont harm eachother.
Your crusade Electric is IMO harmful. I have enough of it. Thanks for ruining it for me. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
Yeah, perhaps so, apologies about that. So by studying Talent's dithering in the Vangelis' picture, I am making the assumption that this could have been made by creating two different converts of the zbrush original and then mixing them together using the 'checkerboard' dithering method. I reversed-engineered the process and got the pics you see in the link posted above. Ofcourse with this I am not implying there's no further pixel pushing done (the eyes look to be more 'clean' than the rest of the face anyway), and my assumption is only about the probable conversion method. :) |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
@Oswald. Sure, I have no way of knowing the process behind this; I'm believing it is based on the zbrush original, but I am not able to guess if he began with dithered conversions or non-dithered conversions on which he worked over up to a certain point and then he mixed them. My assumption is on the conversion method and final dithering method/process. And I don't see anything bad in that. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Yeah, perhaps so, apologies about that. So by studying Talent's dithering in the Vangelis' picture, I am making the assumption that this could have been made by creating two different converts of the zbrush original and then mixing them together using the 'checkerboard' dithering method. I reversed-engineered the process and got the pics you see in the link posted above. Ofcourse with this I am not implying there's no further pixel pushing done (the eyes look to be more 'clean' than the rest of the face anyway), and my assumption is only about the probable conversion method. :)
you dont need two different converts, color converter algorithms using ordered dither matrix can arrive to such an ordered dithered imagine in one pass.
and you can "reverse engineer" any manually ordered dithered picture like this. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
@Oswald. Oh, I didn't know that. Could you point me at one of those converters? |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quote: Electric: You Sir, shouldnt open your mouth too wide, Sir double standards. While you make pretty speeches, and try to harm Talent and his work, you realy should look at yourself and your so well organized ZOO Compitition, where only original work is allowed. Right?
Coltrane
Mixed Graphics Competition at Zoo 2015 : #1
But it has ofcourse advantages to be the organizer, disq other entries of wiring / copying while your own "work" goes through ;)
Yes, that has not been any secret. It's a hand-petsciid version of John Coltrane based on a photo. You can try it out yourself and see how easy it is compared to copy pasting an image to PhotoShop and converting it. For the standards discussed here the release lacks information: original photo reference. Workstages were not required but you can see my workflow from later images where I started to include them (if interested). Will correct if I find out who took the original photo… and prolly good I go through some other works that might lack the reference.
You can also google my images for a lot more PETSCII works that are based on photos or recognizable scene images - some even based on own sketches and drawings and tend to keep it that way as the tools of the past year or two make it possible to convert relatively decently into PETSCII too. That is why we have included workstages for ZOO PETSCII compos lately as well.
If you want to dig my and scene's past from 80s and 90s, feel free to but you can prolly do the bash in related releases or in separate discussion.
Tip where to start from: I think there is also a thread somewhere here where my early works had been examined and referenced too partly at least. Glad someone did the job as I've forgotten all about it. As said in the discussion earlier there ain't much 80s or 90s images that would not have used references. I too have done my teenage Vallejos back in the early days. Just lacked the tools to make 'em properly and internet to google all the references. Dreamt of a scanner back then.
This is part of the discussion of course too - scene past that is full of things never really talked about. When we did the exhibition of Finnish C64 Demoscene Pixel Graphics last year here in Finland with the local museum, this stuff was discussed a lot in public, interviews, panels etc.
Prolly back to Vangelis now :) |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: @Oswald. Oh, I didn't know that. Could you point me at one of those converters?
Project One V0.6
note the author of this tool =), so yeah, he knows what he is talking about. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Oswald : Please read my post about orange pixels in Vangelis' beard. Then just please answer me this: Do you think those pixels were placed there manually? If so, why would they be placed there manually? |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
@electric, I have already asked you yesterday to create a similar Vangelis portrait, if its just copy paste into PS why didnt you do it ?
Truth is you can not come close to what Talent did, even if you can use all the tools and cheating in the world, because its pure hand craft and decades of learning, and his own style he worked out for years.
And as was shown you have also used references, and didnt create images out of "nothing", so you are talking out of your ass. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: @Oswald : Please read my post about orange pixels in Vangelis' beard. Then just please answer me this: Do you think those pixels were placed there manually? If so, why would they be placed there manually?
instead of trying to make me to say what you want to tell me, how about just telling me ? |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
@Oswald & @Peacemaker; thanks I'll have a look. I'm sure you all know what you are talking about. My question was literal; I have no idea about convertors else from those basic ones incorporated in Photoshop and a couple ones on the CPC. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: @Oswald : Please read my post about orange pixels in Vangelis' beard. Then just please answer me this: Do you think those pixels were placed there manually? If so, why would they be placed there manually?
funny, now every pixel artist has to explain why he / she selected this and that color in their gfx or part of their gfx. i have no idea what your goal is on this, but as oswald says, explain it to us :D |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Oswald :
I don't want you to say what I wish you to say. I was really asking you. I thought perhaps you have some theory (or inside information even) about why those pixels would be placed there manually.
Anyway, I don't understand why some of you guys insist on crapping on Electric as if that's some sort of argument in Talent's favor. It comes off as needlessly unrespectful. And it's doing Talent a big fat disservice IMHO. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Peacemaker
Why do I get the feeling you're playing dumb?
Just go to the preview pic of the demo, the little pic on CSDb. Now when GIF plays this portrait observe how you can see a chunk of Vangelis' hand (orange pixels). That hand is not there, but it's in the original. I asked Oswald about his opinion on why would Talent put that chunk of hand that shouldn't be there manually? |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: @Peacemaker
Why do I get the feeling you're playing dumb?
Just go to the preview pic of the demo, the little pic on CSDb. Now when GIF plays this portrait observe how you can see a chunk of Vangelis' hand (orange pixels). That hand is not there, but it's in the original. I asked Oswald about his opinion on why would Talent put that chunk of hand that shouldn't be there manually?
because, you dont seem to know it, on c64 we only have 16 colors and for color shading there is not much choices.
why is there even light green and light blue? :O lol. go ahead mate, you are on something there. haha |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: @Oswald :
I don't want you to say what I wish you to say. I was really asking you. I thought perhaps you have some theory (or inside information even) about why those pixels would be placed there manually.
Anyway, I don't understand why some of you guys insist on crapping on Electric as if that's some sort of argument in Talent's favor. It comes off as needlessly unrespectful. And it's doing Talent a big fat disservice IMHO.
I still believe you already know what you want with your orange pixels, so simply tell us instead of playing this game. Why dont you ask Electric about why this or that PETSCII character was placed manually on his Coltraine picture?
Why dont Electric comes off as needlessly unrespectful with his crapping on Talent? He played his game for days here asking for workstages when he already found the image it is based on. |
| |
Aomeba
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 19 |
I would say there is a blurry line between straight-out conversions (no matter how technically perfect they are) and images that bring artistically something new to the table, even if they use images sourced elsewhere. I've at least tried to do something of the latter.
I compare art (pixel art) in this case to music. You can compose something completely new. Or you can sample something old and come up with totally new and unique stuff that sheds new light on the originals, while standing on its own foot.
But as said it's a blurry line, as is the use of conversion (which I have used myself). Yes the origins should be mentioned. I have not. And so doesn't a lot of sampled music say where the samples come from.
Petscii's so hardcore that I don't see a problem using image references. To my knowledge there's no tool that outputs perfect petscii from images.
Please don't make one either. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
I would love to have Talent drop in and add to this discussion. I think he is here... If I remember correctly I saw him comment on the Vangelis release before. I'm old as hell now and brain does not work as it used to. :)
Instead of people taking sides and defending this or that it would be much appreciated to get the words from the horse's mouth so to say.
Carrion did this wonderful presentation at X23 showing how he works. I would love to see more of those. We can all learn from that. Of course one doesn't have to do it if one does not want to. But just to calm this heated discussion a bit I think for this case it would be beneficial. Personally I would love to see it. Even though I'm old as hell, I still want to learn new things.
What do you say @talent, up for showing it from start to finish? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Peacemaker
Quote:because, you dont seem to know it, on c64 we only have 16 colors and for color shading there is not much choices.
Gee, thanks for teaching me. Now I understand everything.
I wonder how will you feel about it once Talent comes clean about this tho... |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting CarrionPeacemaker Thanks for posting this. I created this anim with passion :)
@Electric.
What is you goal? What is your crusade leads to? I dont expect D-Mage to do next images. Do you want other graphicians stop doing c64 stuff too? Then only you and "real" pixel artist remain on scene?
And yes, I understand all the arguments but for me demoscene is a place to share my passion with others. How they do it is their onw choice as long as we dont harm eachother.
Your crusade Electric is IMO harmful. I have enough of it. Thanks for ruining it for me.
I think the goals have been repeated several times in this discussion already. You have pushed pixels prolly as long as I to know that copying was never liked and converting has been a no-no. This is the core.
This is not my crusade though I’ve now been targeted by several Censor members. In all there are several people who have asked about the details of Talent’s work. What we have got are two short artist’s comments that seem not to match with the outcome but partially. There’s been a long wait for the workstages (or something that shows something else than the final work) and all the rest to be opened up but nothing has really happened. As the “ninja-gate” has been on, this issue became under radar and the (mostly good) discussion has flowed since. The wait for Talent’s own outcome ended last night when Pal made his post with Zbrush ref.
The reason I’ve been active is prolly the fact that this interests me from artist rights -perspective and I’d want the demoscene to grow (even a tiny bit) healthier – to support creativity and to encourage the few newcomers we yearly might get to doing their own work, not to just copy someone else. As Talent is No. 1 artist in CSDB it is also no wonder why people are more interested in his works. I don’t have the time to go and point out all the lousy obvious convs posted here frequently but this case is special – it presents the work of a praised experienced digital artist that fastly became a phenomenon on C64 demoscene with lots of images released in very short time, created with a technique unseen through the 40-year existence of our dear scene. He is something the newcomers too will most likely first check if interested in pushing C64 pixels. Would I encourage them to go to Zbrush and steal someone's work? No. Would I give them some good works to look at, tools and process tips and a pencil / pad to start drawing? Yes.
Repeating again: everyone agrees that Talent does what he does – the outcome is beautiful in terms of the tones especially (though my wife defined most of it as 'sexist' with motifs). What has been wished here is that original artwork would be credited to the whom it belongs and not just tagged with an own signature. This relates with anyone (me, us, you) using references. Stating who made the original is not too much to ask. It’s common manners. Suppose we all could work that out better. There’s nothing taking away the passion… which I see mostly in the challenges C64 and its pixel gfx limitations provide. However, when it comes to simple converting / pipeline gfx it’s very difficult for me to understand where the passion is, unless it some hardcode algorithms one is dealing with.
And will state this once again: I do hate to go through this discussion prolly as much as you do BUT if that is what will make the scene bit healthier and open then it must be done. The private feedback from people (who don't dare to face the bash of such legends as Censor) has been very good. There are lots of people who have thanked for the discussion, privately. I understand it must be painful for you guys but I hope also that you in Censor too reconsider what you see – if you want to continue this path, just clearly credit the original artists. All good then. Problem solved. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: @Peacemaker
Quote:because, you dont seem to know it, on c64 we only have 16 colors and for color shading there is not much choices.
Gee, thanks for teaching me. Now I understand everything.
I wonder how will you feel about it once Talent comes clean about this tho...
while you are here. when do you think to credit the original work of:
Lenin
Commodore 64 Scene Database
Lenin
Commodore 64 Graphics: Lenin by 4gentE. Released on 13 February 2021
source:
https://www.etsy.com/de/listing/922636137/vintage-malerei-lenin.. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Oh my god now you'll be stalking me?
Just so that you don't have to admit the obvious?
OK man. I give up. Not only Talent hand pixels all of his stuff, but everyone else in the scene does not.
Please forgive me for writing anything, please don't stalk me online and please don't come looking for me in front of my house for having an opinion. Mercy! |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Oh my god now you'll be stalking me?
Just so that you don't have to admit the obvious?
OK man. I give up. Not only Talent hand pixels all of his stuff, but everyone else in the scene does not.
Please forgive me for writing anything, please don't stalk me online and please don't come looking for me in front of my house for having an opinion. Mercy!
lol. what a childish reaction of you. as if i would stalk you where? croatia (csdb says so) or ukraine (the etsy page says so) :D
all i did was a image reverse search and found that little wood masterpiece. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote:all i did was a image reverse search and found that little wood masterpiece.
Which serves this conversation how exactly?
About the pictures 'you found' themselves, I guess you didn't look all that carefully (I wonder if you are at all able to) and tbh don't care either.
What you write here is for all to see and judge, I'm happy with that. And, as I said, I have no further argument to make. Everything you said is 'the truth' and I have neither means nor will to contradict. You win! Please continue on your holy quest of disrespecting Electric and other master pixellers and leave me out of it, I'm just not worth it. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
As usual the discussion deteriorates rather quickly when some join in. Happened in the wired ninja compo too.
All we (I think I have many agreeing with me) ask for, is stop the kindergarten throwing sand at each other and have a meaningful discussion.
1. Talent showing his workflow.
2. How do we go about this in the future?
3. The scene with pixel art has been accepted as a cultural heritage in Finland and Netherlands (I think) so we have clean up our way of working. We have to make our own stuff and be proud of it! Finally we get the recognition we all deserve and use that new found respect the right way. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: As usual the discussion deteriorates rather quickly when some join in. Happened in the wired ninja compo too.
All we (I think I have many agreeing with me) ask for, is stop the kindergarten throwing sand at each other and have a meaningful discussion.
1. Talent showing his workflow.
2. How do we go about this in the future?
3. The scene with pixel art has been accepted as a cultural heritage in Finland and Netherlands (I think) so we have clean up our way of working. We have to make our own stuff and be proud of it! Finally we get the recognition we all deserve and use that new found respect the right way.
or how about none of them and instead envious pixelers guilty of doing the same thing stop acting like the spanish inqusition to discredit their competitors. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quoting 4gentEQuote:all i did was a image reverse search and found that little wood masterpiece.
Which serves this conversation how exactly?
About the pictures 'you found' themselves, I guess you didn't look all that carefully (I wonder if you are at all able to) and tbh don't care either.
What you write here is for all to see and judge, I'm happy with that. And, as I said, I have no further argument to make. Everything you said is 'the truth' and I have neither means nor will to contradict. You win! Please continue on your holy quest of disrespecting Electric and other master pixellers and leave me out of it, I'm just not worth it.
you accusing other peoples work as converting / wiring without any proof. and while i look at your work it shows your double standard. sure, throw your shit, but you sit in your own shitwhole. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
especially funny the latest Electric post claiming this is for the good of the scene. No, its for your envious yourself. Dude you won a compo with a work, using a photo as a reference, without giving credit, and now you are here telling everyone thats wrong. You are all over the place suggesting Talent converted, yet you ignore when I ask you to prove, it is really so easy as you claim? You are standing on nothing. Talent's picture didnt even entered any compo, its just a friggin illustration in a demo. Just stop. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Cartman to Towelie: "You're a towel."
Towelie: "YOU're a towel!" |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting Peacemaker
while you are here. when do you think to credit the original work of:
Lenin
Lenin
[/img]
What's wrong with this? Despite of the hopeful new norms we've been discussing here on how to add proper production notes along images? I suppose it's time we dig our past and start adding the missing production notes on the refs etc by ourselves. Maybe Talent can do that as well?
The work here looks like done by hand basing on a reference. A method common for the most PETSCII gfx.
What is childish is going after everyone that disagrees with you in the discussion, this as a targeted group effort. That is of course a way to silence people as we all know. I would still expect something more than smear campaigning from Censor.
FYI: I will try to keep my commenting as unpersonal as possible, hopefully in the topic (though I tend to meander).
Gladly welcoming other topic on 'all the converted and copied crap of our scene'. It will be one big discussion. Things that scene never went through. However, if you think this graphicwise, early 2000s are the times when everyone started to have the tools to work on actual 'easy' copies based on PS collages and stuff. Before that the lack of proper tools leaded to that conversions were still pretty easy to spot. So if you want to start digging, I would propose going after post millenium works. The rest is 50% Vallejos… |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Peacemaker:
When I pleaded with you not to stalk me, that includes not sending me PMs.
@everyone else :
Sorry for this interruption, carry on. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
" The work here looks like done by hand basing on a reference. A method common for the most PETSCII gfx."
no, it looks like the use of a petscii converter. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quoting 4gentE@Peacemaker:
When I pleaded with you not to stalk me, that includes not sending me PMs.
@everyone else :
Sorry for this interruption, carry on.
yeah, i misclicked. i wanted to reply here but clicked on PM instead of QUOTE.. Shame on me, wont happen again. Dont feel stalked, brother ;) |
| |
Flotsam
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 81 |
Quote: lol. what a childish reaction of you. as if i would stalk you where? croatia (csdb says so) or ukraine (the etsy page says so) :D
all i did was a image reverse search and found that little wood masterpiece.
Why would you reverse search an iconic picture that everyone already knows. I'm guessing the recognizeability was the point on this one. It's totally irrelevant to the ongoing discussion. And speaking of it, I've been following it (the discussion) like most of the active scene is, intensily and there's been a lot of good in it, but also too much of trying to sideline the discussion with nonsense. This is such nonsense. Why this hostility and tries at personal counter-attacks? Why not instead try to communicate like adults do and focus on the matter? I understand you're trying to defend Talent, but this is not the right way to do it. This bullshit just prolongs the agony when it's already pretty clear that the pic is a direct conversion of some other artist's work with some additional manual pixeling. The red tint on the beard is not the only telltale sign of this.
See Aomeba's reply... he obviously has understood the point of all this and without anyone asking has come out and openly told how his process involves references and converting too. I have absolutely nothing against using references, using modern tools - I happily use all technologies available myself to produce crappy pics to accompany my tunes. Total respect to Aomeba for being open about it. All this time I've been hoping that Talent would also be open about how this pic came to be and then we would be done with this and live happily ever after and respect eachother. With that said: Maybe it's time to just drop the discussion on this particular pic / person and speak generally. The point has been made and hopefully after this credit will be given to whom deserve it, including the original artists outside the scene.
I'm not a graphics guy and no-one cares about what or how I do my stuff, but I promise to be a better scener from now on and in the future releases mention if I use conversion, AI, references, whatnot. Because... why not?
Sorry for the long and confusing rant. I'm like that. Hopefully no-one read it. Peace, all. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote:no, it looks like the use of a petscii converter.
Of course, you would know better than Electric, you being such an expert, and him being a rookie. Anyway, please stop pulling away from the subject.
Quote:yeah, i misclicked. i wanted to reply here but clicked on PM instead of QUOTE.. Shame on me, wont happen again. Dont feel stalked, brother ;)
OK, I get it, sorry for jumping at that man, I thought you were pulling my leg! ;)
Once again, sorry everybody for this meandering. |
| |
Frostbyte
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 171 |
OK my Final final words: partially echoing Electric, here's a wild idea: How about if we, collaboratively and retroactively, update as many graphics releases as we can with references to the original work(s), giving credit to the original author(s). This is what has been done with e.g. HVSC since day one, if a tune's original version is uncovered (either by the artists themselves or observing listeners), and no one gets butthurt about it, as they shouldn't. Usage of refs can be really obvious like with that famous pic of Lenin (where that woodwork isn't original work either, btw), or less obvious like with some reasonably unknown 3D artists. It doesn't matter.
This would NOT be to disrespect the C64 artist, but to respect the original artist, and to me, is common courtesy.
@Oswald I agree with you that the reimagined portrait of Vangelis was not the best example to spark this discussion, as there are plenty of compo entries even from the past few years that use references but it isn't mentioned, and in a demo it isn't as big of a deal as it is for "entertainment purposes" mainly. However you probably understand that Talent's claims about the originality of the source portrait which was later proven to be not true ignited the already warmed up discussion. And for a good reason. I still hope you can see the bigger picture, and the importance of graphics scene maturing their behaviour in this regard, rather than thinking that this is just a personal attack on Talent when "everyone else does it too". |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
I agree with Electric, Frostbyte, Flotsam and probably more. You are sincerely caring for our little scene and the pixel art. Explaining well thought out ideas and taking your time to write them here. <3
This is an important discussion. We spend so much time making the graphics and we want it to be genuine and also that we compete on fair and equal grounds.
Everyone has their own style, none are more right than the other, quite the opposite! I love we having the diversity. But this is not what this is about, or being envious or whatever.
We just need to do better and make our own take on things. Everyone gets inspiration from day to day stuff. It's impossible to do 100% unique stuff. You can't go around the whole day having your eyes closed.
Being open minded and looking at things gives you ideas, a lot of ideas. And it's great! Inspiration and letting your work give birth to new ideas is the best thing. As was shown in some way in the Wired Ninja Compo. So many new funny takes on the idea that I personally never had thought of. In the context of WIRE it worked very well. |
| |
Clarence
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 119 |
We did meet and had a brief conversation with Talent back in 2015 at one of the Bob's pub meetings in Budapest, he told he already had a big catalog of unreleased hobby pixelworks where he used only the c64 palette for the fun of it, just to see how would it look like, but without taking into account other c64 specific limitations.
Back then Bob (or I) could not convince him to give a few images to see how would it fit into different gfx mode restrictions, he said could not care to release them or see them displayed on a c64.
I'm glad Talent changed his mind recently, and the releases with his graphics show his work can be applied to c64 format impressively good. In short: he did not come out of nowhere with this unique dithering style in a few months.
And concerning the Vangelis image as Oswald said "Talent's picture didnt even entered any compo, its just a friggin illustration in a demo", exactly.
Almost any good demo has lack of art references/workstages for the illustrations used in them. It's not Talent's fault that people voted him into #1 position, and it's not an excuse to demand from him anything. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Well, this demo entered Transmission64 this year. So it did participate in a compo. Of course good graphics in a demo helps it place higher. And if we want to compete on the same fair level for all then maybe the same rules applies for demo compos too? To be fair, this was a demo about Vangelis and having a photo of him in it is relevant. So for me this is a valid reason for having it. Just that maybe the original should have been credited.
And no-one are demanding him to show his technique. We are politely asking but instead we hear nothing from Talent himself, only hearsay from other people. I find it a bit strange. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
" Just that maybe the original should have been credited."
@Sarge have you credited the original here? have you been whitchunted by various gfxes for not doing so ?
(excuse me the poportions dont match exactly but its obvious enough)
Sorry but I'm not buying into the bullshit coming from individuals having done the same as Talent, that this is to make the scene better. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
You. Gotta. Be. F*cking. Kidding. Me. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Good find Oswald.
Yes add this to the credits please since it is indeed a Censor Design release, maybe it was you who coded this part even?
Im not sure you have the correct reference though since it doesn't seem to match. But if it is, and it seems you have the original that I by hand pixeled then who made the reference should be credited. I don't know since this was five years ago and we did not discuss these things back then.
But now we are. So finding straight copies should of course be credited the proper way. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Sorry @The Sarge for contributing to derailment of constructive conversation, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a constructive conversation with those two. Not in their current state of mind.
I’d just like to try and sum up their “argumentation” in chronological progression so far:
1) Talent's Vangelis portrait was completely hand pixelled, you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
2) Talent's Vangelis portrait was based on "a few photos from internet", you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
3) Talent's Vangelis portrait was based on uncredited Zbrush sculpture, but hand pixelled nevertheless, you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
4) Talent's Vangelis portrait was maybe not all that hand pixelled at all, but everyone around here steals and cheats, especially Electric and The Sarge, and yes, that little prick from croatia too, you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
All this in one continuous foaming rant, never looking back, bringing up ridiculously lame ‘aha examples’, continuously spitting on everyone who tries to say something. That about right guys? Or I misunderstood something? |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Sorry @The Sarge for contributing to derailment of constructive conversation, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a constructive conversation with those two. Not in their current state of mind.
I’d just like to try and sum up their “argumentation” in chronological progression so far:
1) Talent's Vangelis portrait was completely hand pixelled, you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
2) Talent's Vangelis portrait was based on "a few photos from internet", you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
3) Talent's Vangelis portrait was based on uncredited Zbrush sculpture, but hand pixelled nevertheless, you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
4) Talent's Vangelis portrait was maybe not all that hand pixelled at all, but everyone around here steals and cheats, especially Electric and The Sarge, and yes, that little prick from croatia too, you’re all jelous, this is a witchunt
All this in one continuous foaming rant, never looking back, bringing up ridiculously lame ‘aha examples’, continuously spitting on everyone who tries to say something. That about right guys? Or I misunderstood something?
lets sum up the "argumentation" of your "side"
"We all did what Talent did, but for some reason he is not allowed to do what we did and this is for the betterment of the Scene" |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Good find Oswald.
Yes add this to the credits please since it is indeed a Censor Design release, maybe it was you who coded this part even?
Im not sure you have the correct reference though since it doesn't seem to match. But if it is, and it seems you have the original that I by hand pixeled then who made the reference should be credited. I don't know since this was five years ago and we did not discuss these things back then.
But now we are. So finding straight copies should of course be credited the proper way.
I have no problem with the Vader picture, same way I have no problem with the Vangelis picture, but you can not hold Talent at gunpoint for what you also did. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Oswald: Are you saying that Vangelis portrait was wired? |
| |
LMan
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 79 |
Let me chip in that this newfound demand for high standards for original artwork in demos, and the way it is discussed with finger pointing and all, is totally unhealthy for our already small scene.
While I agree that it would be nice to introduce quoting used sources and/or AI tagging, the way this is discussed is super toxic and fun killing. Our little scene is too small and in general too insignificant to take away what little fun we get out of it by taking everything so super serious. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
@electric
This is supposed be the picture Talent repixeld according to Electric. Why is there poor color depth and detail on the forehead compared to its eyes ? Can we have the link to the original on the net ? |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: @Oswald: Are you saying that Vangelis portrait was wired?
Already told you, stop trying to make me say what you want to say. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
I think that gfx are "just a illustrations in a demo" indeed hits some point here as well.
For many coders it might be just that – something to fill up the empty space or something fancy to get in the effect and make it look bit better.
However, for pixelers it of course ain't just that but often hundreds of hours of work, creative work that challenge the artists as much as a bug does challenge the coders. I do work with image as my daily job and pixeling for the C64 scene is a hobby. Many pixelers though do something else for their daily jobs and their creative work IS the pixel stuff.
So, it's quite natural that the gfx people want their works to be something more than "just illustrations". Suppose along this comes also the respect towards other people’s work – as seen in this debate it's mostly gfxers who ask for the workstages and coders who do not care. However, if you look at the very commercial fields of graphics you can see that ‘the Chinese way’ of using basicly anything freely for own use is becoming more and more accepted. In here we get back to the arguments on how art field and commercial visual scene differ from each other. Art field still values ‘originality’ but seems to get closer to commercial fields too. A nice image in Instagram gets immediately copied all through the globe. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting Oswald@electric
This is supposed be the picture Talent repixeld according to Electric. Why is there poor color depth and detail on the forehead compared to its eyes ? Can we have the link to the original on the net ?
As mentioned in the post, the 'original' comparison image is built (fastly) out of two images. You can find those from vahidahmadizb2016 in Zbrush. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Oswald:
Quote: Already told you, stop trying to make me say what you want to say.
Sorry man, my bad. I apologize. It seems I got a little bit confused by this:
Quote:"We all did what Talent did, but for some reason he is not allowed to do what we did and this is for the betterment of the Scene”
I tend to conflate what you’re saying with what Peacemaker is saying, so I get confused I guess.
BTW you do realize that the original Vangelis being Zbrush project, the images could be rendered in any quality, hell, camera could be set so that tracing the C64 art to a rendered picture would be impossible. If someone had access to the project. I dunno, if that someone actually bought it. But I digress. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Exactly what LMan said. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Quoting Oswald@electric
This is supposed be the picture Talent repixeld according to Electric. Why is there poor color depth and detail on the forehead compared to its eyes ? Can we have the link to the original on the net ?
As mentioned in the post, the 'original' comparison image is built (fastly) out of two images. You can find those from vahidahmadizb2016 in Zbrush.
thank you, fake "original", so talent indeed used more images as he stated, no false statements on his part. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: @Oswald:
Quote: Already told you, stop trying to make me say what you want to say.
Sorry man, my bad. I apologize. It seems I got a little bit confused by this:
Quote:"We all did what Talent did, but for some reason he is not allowed to do what we did and this is for the betterment of the Scene”
I tend to conflate what you’re saying with what Peacemaker is saying, so I get confused I guess.
BTW you do realize that the original Vangelis being Zbrush project, the images could be rendered in any quality, hell, camera could be set so that tracing the C64 art to a rendered picture would be impossible. If someone had access to the project. I dunno, if that someone actually bought it. But I digress.
Do you realize that electric created a fake original? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Jammer :
See?
I knew your and LMan’s plea will fall on deaf ears. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quote: Do you realize that electric created a fake original?
Heh, you missed the tutorial video from the original 3D artist? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Sorry sorry I can’t resist it:
BE DARNED THEE ELECTRIC WITH THY FAKE ORIGINALS! AHH HARR! :D |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Quoting 4gentE@Jammer :
See?
I knew your and LMan’s plea will fall on deaf ears.
You conveniently missed part of the point, sir. LMan also criticized quite toxic way of discussion which you also started to contribute to, sadly. Cause is noble but means are wrong. I expect more maturity from sceners in handling such serious topics, tbh. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Jammer :
I know, I know, I hear you man. Sorry. |
| |
LMan
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 79 |
It is okay if we wish to set a new standard.
It is bad, and massively unfair, to single out any past release and hold it to that new standard. Here it must not matter how long ago the past release was.
As stated, I agree with those wanting to set up new rules for sources-listig, something which I always took great care of doing on my own project.
However I strongly reject the way it is fought out above Talent's Vangelis picture.
I am an atheist, but I always liked the "who is without sin may throw first" sentiment. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Heh, you missed the tutorial video from the original 3D artist?
Hey, did you missed that electric fabricated a picture and presented it as the original? Sander even fell for it and then claimed that Talent lied using several pictures for the portrait. Nice job guys. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quote: Hey, did you missed that electric fabricated a picture and presented it as the original? Sander even fell for it and then claimed that Talent lied using several pictures for the portrait. Nice job guys.
Heh, that's funny. Unless Talent is Vahid Ahmadi. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
BTW, Electric's initial assumption was that Talent's effort is automatized and not how many references he used so eventually you guys started to accuse of multiple random things for the sake of winning little rhetoric battles hence it all quickly veered from the actual problem. Amrite? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Hein
Quote: Heh, that's funny. Unless Talent is Vahid Ahmadi.
Now, that, sir, would be some serious, genius even, piece of mindf*ckery. Makes me wish it were so. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quote: BTW, Electric's initial assumption was that Talent's effort is automatized and not how many references he used so eventually you guys started to accuse of multiple random things for the sake of winning little rhetoric battles hence it all quickly veered from the actual problem. Amrite?
I wouldn't dare to summarize this thread. :) But the process from 3D original to C64, yes, that's interesting. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Jammer
Who exactly do you refer to by “you guys”?
I’m under the impression that there are 2 guys from Censor on one “side”, and a whole bunch of people that basically have no “side”. Only those two are for some reason so aggressive that almost everyone decided to better just shut up. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m in my ‘bubble’, separated from reality. I don’t exclude that possibility. In all this Talent is curiously absent, I kinda hope he’s preparing a big, argumented response. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Or he'll give up any interaction here after rather persistent public ostracism - also a likely option. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Jammer
Yeah, I’m affraid so too. That’s why I said that his “advocates” are not doing him a favour by heavily stepping up the shittyness of the conversation. |
| |
Clarence
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 119 |
@Sander
"But, as Electric exposed Talent’s denial of using 1 reference, I feel Talent was trying to trick us into believing otherwise. That is a very ugly lie in my book. And makes me question his other work, forever."
That's a bit steep to say that, don't you think? Electric exposed nothing. Talent said "I used about 5-6 photos from net to create this original portrait". Maybe badly worded, so it can be misinterpreted, but he means the full portrait which contains 3 parts: the keyboard, the head and the cloudy backdrop. That's at least 3 references. Maybe he merged the keyboard from multiple images for the chord to show pressed. Is he trying to trick us? |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Quoting 4gentE@Jammer
Yeah, I’m affraid so too. That’s why I said that his “advocates” are not doing him a favour by heavily stepping up the shittyness of the conversation.
Dude, it will happen because of YOU, among others denying Talent's competences, not because of 'advocates' (who do shit job at doing so, btw, especially Oswald). Accountability for words and actions much? ;) If I hate something, it's surely manipulation and I'm clearly sensing 'I wouldn't attack that much if they didn't defend unnecessarily' and all elaborate ways to wiggle out of any influence on potentially sour discussion consequences. You'll have a little blood on your hands in that case, plain and simple, especially you were one of the first commenters hopping on 'let's prove he's a cheating lamer' wagon. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Jammer
OK, blame it on me then.
Just imagine for a sec that Talent wanted to come clean after first polite invitations from The Sarge. Then, those two desperados come in spitting in every direction. Talking utter nonsense, totally clueless, quickly stepping up from defense to attacking people left and right. Now, after his “buddies” so bravely (but cluelessly and he sees that) defended him, he cannot come clean anymore. In effect it would mean he got bullied by them, held hostage in a sense. Now, I’m by no means saying this is the case. I’m just saying imagine that, since you seem to have it all figured out, all in your head, all out of thin air.
Frankly, what bothers me is that those 2 guys were literally crapping over Electric and The Sarge with bullshit “arguments” and you don’t seem to mind that at all. Rarely seen vile disrespect (in this scene from my experience) was being on display. You don’t mind. You only see that something bad happened because of “YOU” (that would be me) as you shouted. (?!?!?) Strange indeed. Do go over the whole thread once more please, I know you are a smart guy. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
 |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Quoting 4gentEDo go over the whole thread once more please, I know you are a smart guy.
I'm smart enough to see big picture like this:
Guy is put under the wall and persistently made involuntarily disclose his workshop and techniques. I'd love to see workstages myself out of sheer curiosity but not at any cost - especially not a cost of scaring Talent off the scene. You may only see couple of pitbulls defending their groupmate because that's comfy for you but I also see how it developed from the first FB posts discrediting Talent's approach and how it speeded up here to very unhealthy overwhelming form. Sorry, you didn't change my view a little bit. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
"Just imagine for a sec that Talent"
 |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
OK. Fair enough.
Interesting choice of words tho. You mention: “couple of pitbulls defending their groupmate” and not “clueless destructive foaming disrespect for some of the greatest pixel artists alive plus everybody else that wanders in by mistake”. I swear I thought I had been transported into some early 90s teenage dick waving Amiga scene showdown. Some active commenters fled this thread when the spitting began. I guess I should have too. I know and everyone who can read knows who did the spitting. I know and everyone who can read knows how clueless these guys were when it came to talking of gfx or art, based on their “arguments”. Let alone those desperately dumb GIFs. I know and everyone who can read knows they absolutely refused or were incapable of coming down and talking to The Sarge constructively. It was pathetic really, maybe some sympathetic artists should have jumped in to help them making lesser jackasses of themselves. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
@Peacemaker
Yes, imagine for a sec. You are equipped for that, right? Did Talent ask you to defend him? If so, then all is OK. Why don’t you ask him what he thinks of your Lenin GIF? Why don’t you ask him what he thinks of Oswalds Darth Vader GIF? And your words around those two? |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
|
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Dear God. I bet your mom’s real proud of you. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting LManHowever I strongly reject the way it is fought out above Talent's Vangelis picture.
TBH, this specific Vangelis portrait is not the only image in the demo taken from internet. It seems that the previous fast made animation raised so much bad blood that I'd rather ask you all to google it by yourselves.
Oswald, I do not quite get it with what you mean with 'fake original'? Talent wrote himself he has used several shots for the final image reference. The fast dummy used for the gif was built out of just two that I got hold of easily – the whole dude and a close-up of his face with just the eyes, nose +++. I put these together without any effort and it is very close to the actual pixeled work already. I indeed received similar drafts from two people privately, both making the same conclusion as I. I stated very clearly along the gif that it used two images. As somebody said here, due it's a model you can create the angle you want but indeed these two seem to be enough already. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
What's the actual accusation point then?! Converting without handmade effort or reference use and ethics? Be precise, ffs, because you're constantly mixing up things, please. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Quoting LManHowever I strongly reject the way it is fought out above Talent's Vangelis picture.
TBH, this specific Vangelis portrait is not the only image in the demo taken from internet. It seems that the previous fast made animation raised so much bad blood that I'd rather ask you all to google it by yourselves.
Oswald, I do not quite get it with what you mean with 'fake original'? Talent wrote himself he has used several shots for the final image reference. The fast dummy used for the gif was built out of just two that I got hold of easily – the whole dude and a close-up of his face with just the eyes, nose +++. I put these together without any effort and it is very close to the actual pixeled work already. I indeed received similar drafts from two people privately, both making the same conclusion as I. I stated very clearly along the gif that it used two images. As somebody said here, due it's a model you can create the angle you want but indeed these two seem to be enough already.
@Electric, simply its not what Talent have used.
Also it was openly admitted he have used references from day 0 so what is your point exactly? He shouldnt do it while you and Sarge is allowed ?
Edit: oh and the guy demanding respect while talking about waving dicks. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
I'm really starting to think this is a structural campaign from the competition. ;) |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting OswaldAlso it was openly admitted he have used references from day 0 so what is your point exactly? He shouldnt do it while you and Sarge is allowed ?
I have never said anywhere in this discussion that references could not be used. The question is if they're straight retouched copies (read: you google a photo, retouch it a bit or make a collage to hide your tracks + convert / pipeline it for C64) or used as Vermeer did it: to learn how to draw it by looking at it.
An example: if you need to draw a hand, look at it and draw it – it won't be exactly what the hand you looked at is but it will most likely be something with five fingers (if not AI used). Shortcut here would be to google a hand in certain position, retouch, scale to C64 res and handle the colours & dithering. In the latter case (with the new norms I've been proposing and what this discussion is partly about) the original image should be presented as a reference, either as an image or shortly noted as text.
In Zoo pixel graphics compo rules use of references is allowed, handmade remakes too:
“… Converting is not accepted at any stage of the image. This concerns scans or googled images or collages out of these. However, you may use a reference image such as a photo taken by you or sketch you have drawn. Handmade remakes are accepted but in such case please provide all necessary information on the original art (author, title etc.) – this information will be shown along the image. However, we encourage you to focus on your own handmade unique art and ideas.”
This is from '22 edition rules and we'll prolly need to update it. Just want to point out how we treated this issue two years ago. In the end it is the jury that will decide on what is in and what is out.
What comes to the specificly chosen example of Sarge's work I would rather recommend to image search for Talent's work from 2023 and do the same with Sarge. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
@Electric I still dont know whats your point here. If you think its a "little bit retouched" convert, then you can prove it easily, do a similar picture tommorow. Convert and retouch a bit. Make a better one.
I could show more examples from Sarge, even you. The question is have you converted the Coltraine picture and then retouched it a bit, or you did it like Vermeer? do you have the workstages?
edit: Nah Vermeer traced outlines with pinhole camera so its not even true he just looked at it. But then even Van Gogh is guilty, he looked at Nature and copied. Oh my god! |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting JammerWhat's the actual accusation point then?! Converting without handmade effort or reference use and ethics? Be precise, ffs, because you're constantly mixing up things, please.
I know it's prolly painful to follow this staggering talk but it's all been said few times already. This is a complicated issue of course.
What has been discussed has emphasized artist's rights and general ethics that most of the gfxers who have posted in here seem to agree with: if needed give the credit to the original artists whose work you have used or note them somehow at least. This does not take away anything from anyone.
In addition there has been doubts if the dithering in Talent's case is made by hand (as stated) or automized. This relates with all the conversion discussion that you can prolly read more in the Ninja-gate. Significant similarity with the original and the pixeled work is often a sign of some sort of conversion just due we humans tend to do mistakes. I hope we can see (at least in the future) workstages from Talent too so these doubts can be flushed down the toilet. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
"most of the gfxers who have posted in here seem to agree with: if needed give the credit to the original artists whose work you have used or note them somehow at least"
Most of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent... |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quoting Oswald"most of the gfxers who have posted in here seem to agree with: if needed give the credit to the original artists whose work you have used or note them somehow at least"
Most of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
Some try to better themselves, which is not always on a technical level. Though everyone can ofcourse choose what moral ethics or visual aesthetics they want to uphold. :) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote:Most of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
Please forgive me man, please don’t get mad. I’m aware that you already told me not to tell you what to say (wow that sounded convoluted). But what you said here, again (to my understanding at least) implies that Talent pixels over converted gfx. Now, I’m not a native English speaker mind you, so forgive me if I’m reading this wrong. |
| |
El Jefe @ X2024
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 68 |
Quoting Jammer
... especially you were one of the first commenters hopping on 'let's prove he's a cheating lamer' wagon.
@Jammer: Lets try to understand why at some point everyone hopped on the "let's prove he's a cheating lamer" wagon. So far we have only two statements from Talent:
1) "I can assure everybody that I do not use any programs or converters, but only photoshop in indexed color mode c64 palette (CD inhouse, something between pepto and colodore; makes no difference at endresult) with 2:1 aspect ratio (brick pixel) and my eyes $ right hand pixeling."
2) "Just for the record, making a portrait basicly means, that a person sits for you while you paint (or photo) the subject of the portrait (copy him/her as lifelikely as possible). In case the subject can't be present for obvious reasons to sit for a painting, the painter can use photographs or other reproductions of the person. The artist's goal to add the own style and fill the work with spirit and emotions. In case of a C64 as media even to make the large amount of mental work and design to create a vision against the strong limitations by using the poor possibilities in terms of palette and resolution.
BTW I used about 5-6 photos from net to create this original portrait that has the ethereal feel, that befit the sad case of the tribute and filled the pixels with life and soul to express my appreciation to Vangelis."
In my understanding, in 1) Talent expresses, that he does not convert pictures from anywhere and creates all his gfx in Photoshop (with a certain palette) using his eyes/vision/brain to turn that what he sees into pixels from scratch by mere hand pixeling. This is crucial for me in the whole discussion!
My understanding of his second comment is that he emphazizes again, that he worked on it like a portrait artist, observing the motiv (in this case, as he mentions, 5-6 photos from the internet) and turned it into pixels. I also understood his mentioning of "the large amount of mental work and design to create a vision against the strong limitations by using the poor possibilities in terms of palette and resolution." and "create this original portrait that has the ethereal feel, that befit the sad case of the tribute and filled the pixels with life and soul" as a renewed emphasis on the fact that he created everything himself by hand.
I guess im not alone with this understanding and I think it makes it comprehensible that when the mentions of VAHIDAHMADIZB2016's work surfaced on here, and the guys that defend Talent, started the argumentation with explaining that there was no conversion involved, some guys got mad.
If im not mistaken, in the meantime it was admitted that conversion was involved (please correct me if i am wrong).
I guess the whole fuzz is due to the combination of Talent`s initial (and only) statements and how the the discussion later developed regarding the statements about how the pic was created. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Quote:Most of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
Please forgive me man, please don’t get mad. I’m aware that you already told me not to tell you what to say (wow that sounded convoluted). But what you said here, again (to my understanding at least) implies that Talent pixels over converted gfx. Now, I’m not a native English speaker mind you, so forgive me if I’m reading this wrong.
you are reading wrong. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting OswaldMost of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
This would apply to everyone of course.
Many gfxers have agreed here already. It's not a new proposal either. Some have done this kind of referring already for years. This discussion has proposed that these productional infos could be attached to older releases too. I will try to do that with my pics that lack 'em in the cases where references are used. Prolly too much to ask with demos but at least with single images additional production notes would be welcomed. This should apply to PETSCII too as the current tools make it possible to convert at least somewhat decently.
Talent's case is such that big portion of his '23 images seem to be 1:1 with art made by other people, with a signature of his in. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
"In addition there has been doubts if the dithering in Talent's case is made by hand (as stated) or automized."
and again accusing without any profs. well, go ahead, eletric. i am wondering whats wrong with you. just because you are not able to do such masterful dithering, does not mean it must be automized. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote: you are reading wrong.
Oh, OK. Sorry then. Again I ask Oswald, Peacemaker responds. You guys make my poor head spin.
So, you (both I guess) are sticking to ‘no conversion whatsoever involved’ schtick? |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Quoting OswaldMost of the gfxers who have posted here have pixeled over converted gfx without giving credit. But now they have proudly set a new standard for Talent...
This would apply to everyone of course.
Many gfxers have agreed here already. It's not a new proposal either. Some have done this kind of referring already for years. This discussion has proposed that these productional infos could be attached to older releases too. I will try to do that with my pics that lack 'em in the cases where references are used. Prolly too much to ask with demos but at least with single images additional production notes would be welcomed. This should apply to PETSCII too as the current tools make it possible to convert at least somewhat decently.
Talent's case is such that big portion of his '23 images seem to be 1:1 with art made by other people, with a signature of his in.
This discussion is not about what you try to make it look.
as lman already pointed out if you want to set new standards it shouldnt be discussed over someone's picture, and the new rules should be only applied to pictures done after that. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting Oswaldas lman already pointed out if you want to set new standards it shouldnt be discussed over someone's picture, and the new rules should be only applied to pictures done after that.
Yes, and in any case copy is a copy and a conv is a conv. Both no-nos in gfx compos. It was that '87 and it's that today. Nothing changed here.
Refs have been optional but shown good manners when credited. Workstages have been mandatory for bigger party gfx compos. The discussion proposes slight changes with these both.
Indeed I don't see much changing but just hope to see us all paying attention to these - gfxers, coders, musicians, party orgs, moderators +++ |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
"Yes, and in any case copy is a copy and a conv is a conv. Both no-nos in gfx compos. It was that '87 and it's that today. Nothing changed here."
This looks like a straight convert, congrats for your 2nd place.
Love Lisa |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
You two (O&P) keep saying that a nod to the author of the original is not and should be not needed. I think it should be there out of mere decency, but I know why it’s sometimes deliberately absent. It’s because of this reality.
What is the reality? I’ll be dead frank. It’s dead obvious that there was conversion involved at a point in making of this portrait. It’s dead obvious to artists, it’s dead obvious to anyone who knows anything about making graphics, it’s dead obvious to some of us amateurs too. 100%. So what? Nobody here is saying that Talent has no talent. Nobody is saying that Talent doesn’t possess that unique style of his, nobody is denying the skillful hours spent on his masterpieces. All that is (occasionally) being said is that one of many elements of Talents masterful creative process is conversion. Everyone can see that, once provided with the source material, although some are too polite, too careful to say it out loud. Some even scared maybe. But Oswald & Peacemaker here go into fits whenever this obvious truth is even hinted at. Desperately out of their depth, cluelessly lashing out at reality. At people.
Now, was it necessary to have this conversation under this great demo? Perhaps no. Was it the wrong place to try and agree on a new standard for graphicians? Perhaps yes. But that doesn’t make what I wrote above any less true, any less real. |
| |
Nim
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 27 |
Quote: You two (O&P) keep saying that a nod to the author of the original is not and should be not needed. I think it should be there out of mere decency, but I know why it’s sometimes deliberately absent. It’s because of this reality.
What is the reality? I’ll be dead frank. It’s dead obvious that there was conversion involved at a point in making of this portrait. It’s dead obvious to artists, it’s dead obvious to anyone who knows anything about making graphics, it’s dead obvious to some of us amateurs too. 100%. So what? Nobody here is saying that Talent has no talent. Nobody is saying that Talent doesn’t possess that unique style of his, nobody is denying the skillful hours spent on his masterpieces. All that is (occasionally) being said is that one of many elements of Talents masterful creative process is conversion. Everyone can see that, once provided with the source material, although some are too polite, too careful to say it out loud. Some even scared maybe. But Oswald & Peacemaker here go into fits whenever this obvious truth is even hinted at. Desperately out of their depth, cluelessly lashing out at reality. At people.
Now, was it necessary to have this conversation under this great demo? Perhaps no. Was it the wrong place to try and agree on a new standard for graphicians? Perhaps yes. But that doesn’t make what I wrote above any less true, any less real.
See that's the problem, you're dead wrong. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: You two (O&P) keep saying that a nod to the author of the original is not and should be not needed. I think it should be there out of mere decency, but I know why it’s sometimes deliberately absent. It’s because of this reality.
What is the reality? I’ll be dead frank. It’s dead obvious that there was conversion involved at a point in making of this portrait. It’s dead obvious to artists, it’s dead obvious to anyone who knows anything about making graphics, it’s dead obvious to some of us amateurs too. 100%. So what? Nobody here is saying that Talent has no talent. Nobody is saying that Talent doesn’t possess that unique style of his, nobody is denying the skillful hours spent on his masterpieces. All that is (occasionally) being said is that one of many elements of Talents masterful creative process is conversion. Everyone can see that, once provided with the source material, although some are too polite, too careful to say it out loud. Some even scared maybe. But Oswald & Peacemaker here go into fits whenever this obvious truth is even hinted at. Desperately out of their depth, cluelessly lashing out at reality. At people.
Now, was it necessary to have this conversation under this great demo? Perhaps no. Was it the wrong place to try and agree on a new standard for graphicians? Perhaps yes. But that doesn’t make what I wrote above any less true, any less real.
Submitted by Oswald [PM] on 14 December 2023
@Electric, I've seen this picture months before release and it was obvious from day -90 that this is based on something from the net.
also Electric suggested countless times already that Talent's dither style is result of conversion, and he ignored countless time to prove it and make a similar picture by conversion. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
This looks like a dead end.
I honestly cannot believe that someone who is not Oswald or Peacemaker (talking to you Nim), someone who understands graphics, after so many signs, after even the pixels of the ‘phantom’ hand seen through the beard can say that there was no conversion whatsoever. But, I said it before, maybe I’m in my ‘bubble’ and the reality is something completely different from what seems obvious to me.
What I don’t understand is this amount of backlash.
Graphicians produce their masterpieces these days with a whole arsenal of tools. Conversion being only one of them. Conversion is not a swear word. We’re not talking about lazy worthless converts here. Conversion being deployed as only one element of many does not reduce the value of Talents exquisite work (speaking strictly for myself here).
Peace. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting Oswald"Yes, and in any case copy is a copy and a conv is a conv. Both no-nos in gfx compos. It was that '87 and it's that today. Nothing changed here."
This looks like a straight convert, congrats for your 2nd place.
So you had to dig +26 years into the past to the 21-yo me to find my Lisa Bonet? … this by avoiding the close 100 images done during 2000s you did not find much about?
You can find lots more from the 90s if you want - these are no secrets as told. Let me know about the converters of that era too as I did not have any. There were rumours some had but looking at the works released those days I think most of it came bit later. I can send you my Donald Duck drawings too from when I was 7.
I already wrote here that my 80s and 90s pics - like most of the era's - are almost all based on references. Called it and call it sort of 'technical period' on all the scenes indeed – the most iconic scene pics like the 'Hair of the Dog' from Cougar (that I traced into PETSCII) are hand-pixeled own versions of the original references.
Our “history” part of the Pixeled Years -exhibition presenting demoscene had ONE original Finnish C64 fullscreen pixel image from 80s-90s. Rest used references fully or partially. There’s lots to dig into.
I think the main problem in the beginning was to outline / sketch something. It was really tricky as free pen drawing was not really practical at least in any of the software I was using – most lacked it completely. This is a good example of bad own try (1993): Compopic
Took some studying and practising to learn to work on my own stuff. New tools helped.
FYI: this one (like all the 90s) pics was done by:
a) photocopying the original into the size or my 15" telly
b) by tracing outlines on transparent sheet with a pen
c) sheet bluetagged on the telly and then traced the outlines from there to the software. Colouring then done by trying to imitate the image, with better or worse results.
(d) dreaming of a scanner)
A pic like Talent’s Vangelis would’ve been wizardry back then, like it is now. |
| |
Nim
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 27 |
Quote: This looks like a dead end.
I honestly cannot believe that someone who is not Oswald or Peacemaker (talking to you Nim), someone who understands graphics, after so many signs, after even the pixels of the ‘phantom’ hand seen through the beard can say that there was no conversion whatsoever. But, I said it before, maybe I’m in my ‘bubble’ and the reality is something completely different from what seems obvious to me.
What I don’t understand is this amount of backlash.
Graphicians produce their masterpieces these days with a whole arsenal of tools. Conversion being only one of them. Conversion is not a swear word. We’re not talking about lazy worthless converts here. Conversion being deployed as only one element of many does not reduce the value of Talents exquisite work (speaking strictly for myself here).
Peace.
Talent uses Photoshop CC 2015 and a tool written by Edhellon (or was it Oswald?) to check for colour clashes, that is all. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting NimTalent uses Photoshop CC 2015 and a tool written by Edhellon (or was it Oswald?) to check for colour clashes, that is all.
Thanks! I think (or how I would prolly try it) the dithering is then done via layers – having the same image with multiple dark / light / toned versions split on at least two layers presented then as odd/even pixel via masking… with additional brushing on the image and masks. Needs prolly lots of tuning though to make it into a pipeline. I'm assumingly wrong here but can't resist betting. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
 |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Just imagine how much confusion and trolling we could have avoided if Talent could have answered a simple question himself. We could also have saved a lot of time.
I met him at X and he seems like a decent normal man that could talk.
So I don't get this at all. It's pretty normal wanting to know more. Especially in the field you work in. I use to go to seminars where real talents show their complete process. Nothing wrong with that.
Sharing is caring. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
"Just imagine how much confusion and trolling we could have avoided if Talent could have answered a simple question himself. "
Zero. Electric still goes on about how its an automated process.
"So I don't get this at all. It's pretty normal wanting to know more."
Thats not what have happened here. You have came with accusations of cheating and copying. You have blamed Talent for not giving credit to the original artist while you practice the same thing yourselves. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Alright. The answer I expected. I was probably foolishly thinking that maybe, just maybe Talent would join this merry bunch of people discussing this.
I guess we have to live in doubt forever if its converted or not or whatever.
The clouds will never lift.
You can't always get what you want I guess. :) |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
"I guess we have to live in doubt forever if its converted or not or whatever."
NiM just answered your "question" on how Talent works, you still keep on with the trolling as I just said you would.
Btw, why didnt you ask Talent when you were in the same group? Obviously you're not interested in the answer, you just play games.
Talent has a lot of years of work in this style. Maybe you better work on your technique, instead of throwing mud. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Nim basically said "he paints" and that was it.
It's like asking how that excellent code was done and get "He codes in KickAssembler"
We both know it's more advanced than that.
:D
I did ask him. Never showed me much there either. As we both know he was very absent from that Discord too.
But this is going nowhere until Talent joins this even more merry bunch of people.
Still clouded. Even darker. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Nim basically said "he paints" and that was it.
It's like asking how that excellent code was done and get "He codes in KickAssembler"
We both know it's more advanced than that.
:D
I did ask him. Never showed me much there either. As we both know he was very absent from that Discord too.
But this is going nowhere until Talent joins this even more merry bunch of people.
Still clouded. Even darker.
Like anyone knows how you or Electric creates gfx.
We dont, so you are cheating. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Here you go.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBs-cTl5xpX2Mlai26mo1Zuz52lZ.. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Here you go.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBs-cTl5xpX2Mlai26mo1Zuz52lZ..
I could continue, but I have too much respect for you to go into totall troll mode. Please try to apply the rule: innocent until proven guilty. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
I thought you were in “total troll” mode tbh. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
The Sarge: Workstages of 2600 please.thank you. |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Sure
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4obeue1ea7wjvf9ek4qny/h?rlkey=ez..
Now you even get some scrapped half finished stuff that was never used.
Scoop-time! :)
So now I have showed you mine, please show me yours. ;) Which is what this thread has been asking all along. |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Sure
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4obeue1ea7wjvf9ek4qny/h?rlkey=ez..
Now you even get some scrapped half finished stuff that was never used.
Scoop-time! :)
So now I have showed you mine, please show me yours. ;) Which is what this thread has been asking all along.
hehe. i never record my coding in notepad++ :D
where are the workstages of  ? |
| |
The Sarge
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 42 |
Peacemaker.
I really don't understand what this is about. You posting this Night Driver image. What are you trying to say? One or two short sentences. Please take your time and explain more thoroughly next time so I have a chance to understand.
First rule in a discussion is understanding the topic. If not understanding there is a risk of making a fool of oneself.
So.
Do you know what the 2600 was about?
If you didn't understood here is the explanation. When I was young I had an Atari 2600 and played a lot of games that I loved. I also loved the cover images on those boxes. It's pretty obvious isn't it?
Those images was mesmerising. So I thought I would make an ode to the artist that made these. It is stated in the release comments. Please read if you are interested.
I'm also flattered you like my stuff so much that you remembered this release some 3+ years ago.
These are not wired or converted. Pure pixel pushing.
There are not of course complete timelapse or complete work stages because I never in my dreams thought someone would ask for them this many years later. Bummer. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: Peacemaker.
I really don't understand what this is about. You posting this Night Driver image. What are you trying to say? One or two short sentences. Please take your time and explain more thoroughly next time so I have a chance to understand.
First rule in a discussion is understanding the topic. If not understanding there is a risk of making a fool of oneself.
So.
Do you know what the 2600 was about?
If you didn't understood here is the explanation. When I was young I had an Atari 2600 and played a lot of games that I loved. I also loved the cover images on those boxes. It's pretty obvious isn't it?
Those images was mesmerising. So I thought I would make an ode to the artist that made these. It is stated in the release comments. Please read if you are interested.
I'm also flattered you like my stuff so much that you remembered this release some 3+ years ago.
These are not wired or converted. Pure pixel pushing.
There are not of course complete timelapse or complete work stages because I never in my dreams thought someone would ask for them this many years later. Bummer.
This is about exposing hypocrisy. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 572 |
Gah, stop arguing here and go make a demo about it :p
Meanwhile… on the subject of Vangelis… it’s kinda ironic that we’re talking about copying (or not)… https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vangelis-chariots-of-fir..
And I realise that I’m not the right person to comment here… after using Adobe Stock images in past art… Colours Explained |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quoting Raistlin
Meanwhile… on the subject of Vangelis… it’s kinda ironic that we’re talking about copying (or not)… https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vangelis-chariots-of-fir..
Then the Vangelis fans in court:
https://www.vangelismovements.com/stavroslogaridis.htm
and so on, and so on... enough for a demo indeed. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting RaistlinMeanwhile… on the subject of Vangelis… it’s kinda ironic that we’re talking about copying (or not)… https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vangelis-chariots-of-fir..
*doh* I will never understand why musicians go to court because of a couple of notes that probably every musician comes up with once in their life. Yeah some notes are the same – true for 99% of all western 12 tone music – especially within the same genre. And even more when you mostly stay in diatonic scale (7 notes out of 12) you'll end up with the same / very similar progressions as others all the time. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3035 |
It took a while to read it all but I had to react here or there and I also came to this conclusion
TLDR:
Two people who aren't graphicians (Peacemaker and Oswald), are insulting real talented graphic artists in the ill attempt to defend another talented artist over the dispute about artistic integrity.
--------------------------------------
And now the comments to the posts that caught my attention
Quoting Carrion@Electric.
What is you goal? What is your crusade leads to? I dont expect D-Mage to do next images. Do you want other graphicians stop doing c64 stuff too? Then only you and "real" pixel artist remain on scene?
And yes, I understand all the arguments but for me demoscene is a place to share my passion with others. How they do it is their onw choice as long as we dont harm eachother.
Your crusade Electric is IMO harmful. I have enough of it. Thanks for ruining it for me.
I think what Electric was trying to point out and explain over and over is valid point. Which is: be upfront and give credits where credits are due. There is place for that in release fields. Production notes. Trivia. Goofs. Use whatever you want. Best place is directly in the demo credits of course. By the way, same goes for composing. I'm glad if anyone fills in the gaps in STIL (sid tune information list). But I don't want to discuss that here extensively. All I want to say, that I could do better in past and thanks to the STIL editors (SID Tune Information List) for filling in the gaps, although not completely. We all could and should do better.
Quoting 4gentEorange pixels in Vangelis' beard.
This is out of question. They wouldn't be there if the process of creation of the image was completely manual.
Quoting peacemaker...
Logical fallacies all over. And ad hominems and doxing aimed at 4gentE are the most despicable.
Quoting Oswald replying The Sargeor how about none of them and instead envious pixelers guilty of doing the same thing stop acting like the spanish inqusition to discredit their competitors.
Please, grow up.
Quoting FlotsamThis is such nonsense. Why this hostility and tries at personal counter-attacks? Why not instead try to communicate like adults do and focus on the matter? I understand you're trying to defend Talent, but this is not the right way to do it. This bullshit just prolongs the agony when it's already pretty clear that the pic is a direct conversion of some other artist's work with some additional manual pixeling. The red tint on the beard is not the only telltale sign of this.
...I promise to be a better scener from now on and in the future releases mention if I use conversion, AI, references, whatnot. Because... why not
Word!
Quoting 4gentE replying to JammerFrankly, what bothers me is that those 2 guys were literally crapping over Electric and The Sarge with bullshit “arguments” and you don’t seem to mind that at all.
I agree with this one.
Quoting Jammercost of scaring Talent off the scene
Should the artistic community sacrifice it's pursuit for integrity for the sake of pleasing everyone? I have quote about where it leads... in my profile, btw.
Quoting Peacemaker well, go ahead, eletric. i am wondering whats wrong with you. just because you are not able to do such masterful dithering, does not mean it must be automized.
I would call it unique and unusual style. It's biggest advantage is consistency. It gives Wonderland XIV visually consistent and unique gfx style whenever *the girl* appears on screen, which is great, but how you dare to accuse Electric of being envious of such style? For example in Wonderland XIV the part where the girl is running away from taxi (https://youtu.be/X6z3GgV7LaQ?feature=shared&t=13249). I can't imagine anyone else would be satisfied with this one as finished to every pixel, and still it works in general style of the demo.
Quoting OswaldThis looks like a straight convert, congrats for your 2nd place. Love Lisa
26 years old picture from Electric just proves his argument, actually. He asks from more ethical approach because he is 26 years older now. You should grow up too. Your "arguments" are no match to his and it's kinda obvious that he talks with you patiently, as with a child. It's painful to watch.
Quoting ElectricOur “history” part of the Pixeled Years -exhibition presenting demoscene had ONE original Finnish C64 fullscreen pixel image from 80s-90s. Rest used references fully or partially. There’s lots to dig into.
Can you plase give a link to that one? Or screenshot?
Quoting Oswald insulting The SargeMaybe you better work on your technique, instead of throwing mud.
I literally swallow the insults I would like to send to your direction after this, you fool.
Quoting Oswald insulting The SargeThis is about exposing hypocrisy.
...and it literally hurts to read this comment which you don't even mean seriously. If it weren't for Peacemaker, I would say you went full retard in this thread (and won), but he had beat you by a hair. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
@Creamd,
Hypocrisy on your part aswell, you call us out for personal attacks while you have made some of strongest ones in the whole thread (with 4gentE), and you conveniently dont have any problem with 4gentE's behaviour, because he shares your opinion.
It has been shown that, Electric, The Sarge, 4gentE are all guilty for reworking existing pictures. Most of them being quite recent work. Not just one 26 year old example was shown.
Where was Electric pointing his finger and creating crossfade anigifs, asking for workstages when 2600 was released ?
You may call me a childish retard, but I'm convinced this is happening because they can not stand the competition Talent gives them, and it has nothing to do with "the artistic community's pursuit for integrity for the sake of pleasing everyone" |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote: It has been shown that, Electric, The Sarge, 4gentE are all guilty for reworking existing pictures.
Makes one think : is this guy hallucinating or lying? |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3035 |
Quote: @Creamd,
Hypocrisy on your part aswell, you call us out for personal attacks while you have made some of strongest ones in the whole thread (with 4gentE), and you conveniently dont have any problem with 4gentE's behaviour, because he shares your opinion.
It has been shown that, Electric, The Sarge, 4gentE are all guilty for reworking existing pictures. Most of them being quite recent work. Not just one 26 year old example was shown.
Where was Electric pointing his finger and creating crossfade anigifs, asking for workstages when 2600 was released ?
You may call me a childish retard, but I'm convinced this is happening because they can not stand the competition Talent gives them, and it has nothing to do with "the artistic community's pursuit for integrity for the sake of pleasing everyone"
For the sake of pleasing everyone? You are so "in the mood" that you aren't even capable of reading with comprehension. I will put you with peacemaker on ignore until someone tells me you calmed down. And you telling me I made the strongest insults here, dude, seriously, get your shit together. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2076 |
Quoting Electric...
Indeed I don't see much changing but just hope to see us all paying attention to these - gfxers, coders, musicians, party orgs, moderators +++
I hope you're not speaking of CSDb moderators but of party moderators...
/o\
D'OH I'm both...
Speaking for CSDb Modding: Thanks for going on here instead of Comments. But 148 postings in 2 nights... have patience if you expect any of us to catch up with these textwalls or just PM us if you think there's any punches below the belt. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
Quote: For the sake of pleasing everyone? You are so "in the mood" that you aren't even capable of reading with comprehension. I will put you with peacemaker on ignore until someone tells me you calmed down. And you telling me I made the strongest insults here, dude, seriously, get your shit together.
"you went full retard in this thread (and won)"
"Please, grow up"
"get your shit together"
"You should grow up too"
"insults I would like to send to your direction after this, you fool."
"talks with you patiently, as with a child. It's painful to watch."
"you aren't even capable of reading "
" And you telling me I made the strongest insults here" |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2076 |
Quoting Oswald"... full retard ..."
No one should ever do that here.
Never Go Full Retard
Topryk Thunder
So either _use_ that Ignore function or
 |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting LManI am an atheist, but I always liked the "who is without sin may throw first" sentiment.
I'm a theist and I second that.
Although I think the proper bible verse for the development in this thread is "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." ;-) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2076 |
Thanks for quoting my mantra :)
LMan: You need to watch Life of Brian for X-Mas :)
now let religion be religion, God aside (unlike Godwin thou shalt not mention His name anyway without proper reasons) and BTT (for whatever that ever has been) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quoting spider-jQuoting RaistlinMeanwhile… on the subject of Vangelis… it’s kinda ironic that we’re talking about copying (or not)… https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vangelis-chariots-of-fir..
*doh* I will never understand why musicians go to court because of a couple of notes that probably every musician comes up with once in their life. Yeah some notes are the same – true for 99% of all western 12 tone music – especially within the same genre. And even more when you mostly stay in diatonic scale (7 notes out of 12) you'll end up with the same / very similar progressions as others all the time.
I'm no lawyer, but that copyright infringement claim also applies to our copies, me think. Unless they're royalty free originals. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting HeinI'm no lawyer, but that copyright infringement claim also applies to our copies, me think. Unless they're royalty free originals.
Unpopular opinion for artists from an artist incoming: I believe the whole concept of "intellectual property" is very far-fetched. Imho that's a pretty weird idea for a creature that would not even be able to survive on its own for many years after its birth (and today often not in their last years on this planet), comes naked and will be buried naked. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quoting spider-jQuoting HeinI'm no lawyer, but that copyright infringement claim also applies to our copies, me think. Unless they're royalty free originals.
Unpopular opinion for artists from an artist incoming: I believe the whole concept of "intellectual property" is very far-fetched. Imho that's a pretty weird idea for a creature that would not even be able to survive on its own for many years after its birth (and today often not in their last years on this planet), comes naked and will be buried naked.
You're not the only one who thinks that, considering all the meme sharing these days. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting HeinYou're not the only one who thinks that, considering all the meme sharing these days.
I always thought about it that way: if I can't "make it", but someone else would "make it" by stealing from *me* that would be a pretty cool thing. It takes more than putting some notes together to be successful. And I am and was to lazy to take that "more" path anyway. So feel free to "steal" from me :-)
And yes "meme culture" is completely build on that idea to take some stuff and put it in a new context. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
Quote:Imho that's a pretty weird idea for a creature that would not even be able to survive on its own for many years after its birth (and today often not in their last years on this planet), comes naked and will be buried naked.
And WTF half of them are butt ugly >_< |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting chatGPZAnd WTF half of them are butt ugly >_<
Well, one of my ex-girlfriends used to say "Das Glück ist mit den Dummen und die Dunkelheit mit den Häßlichen"... I'm not sure what she wanted to tell me with that :-P |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Or as King Fisher would say (well, write a paper actually): COPYRIGHT DOES NOT EXIST. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Or eventually this thread dies off. And nothing changes at all. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quote: Or eventually this thread dies off. And nothing changes at all.
The day has just started here, we first gotta visit church for some rhetoric inspiration. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
@CreamD
The wall mockups from The Pixeled Years -exhibition at The FInnish Museum of Games in Tampere: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DUFioUj1jdpJUrOwILkZ_KpsBSFN9w..
This was curated by Duce and me. Note that the exhibition presents Finnish C64 demoscene pixel graphics. We split the small space in three:
1) "Logo wall" presenting mostly 80s logos (logos were prolly the main graphics of the early scene)
2) “History wall” with few images from 80s and 90s, with aim to present how the works developed over the years, along tools. With short infos that explained about the use of references and technical approach to pixel art. The works on this wall were not meant to be ‘awesome’ but merely 'interesting' and explaining how things evolved. We tried to have one image from each year until 1999. Now looking at it there are few that seem somewhat original (not just one as I earlier said).
3) “Modern wall” with a lot of images, mainly recent or made after millenium. We tried to focus on original own hand-pixeled art. References were used in many images on this wall as well.
Along these there were a slideshow with +200 images and work stations with 80s setup (Art Studio + stick) and modern one (laptop + mouse + Multipaint).
NOTE! These mockups are prolly not the very final ones. Anyway, you get the point from here.
@TheRyk
I meant mostly moderators in Facebook groups. Wish that the productional notes or information on AI use or such would be shared along the images. Well, most group just want to get visibility for the actual group so posting fast is what they do.
When it comes to CSDB we all can of course add these notes by ourselves. That’s also what this debate is partly about – information or lack of it. However, I proposed earlier a release type of “C64 Converted Graphics” or such – now the AI and all goes to same place with hand-pixeled stuff and causes errors. This would be something that matters to us doing graphics.
@Jazzcat
I hope the thread dies at some point but the outcome would be some sort of common deal on our ethics. Enough bad blood already spilled and supposingly that won’t really dry along with the discussion without an outcome. |
| |
macx
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 250 |
Quote: Quoting LManI am an atheist, but I always liked the "who is without sin may throw first" sentiment.
I'm a theist and I second that.
Although I think the proper bible verse for the development in this thread is "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." ;-)
Correct. But can we now please focus on what is important in this scene: To hand-pixel images by Boris Vallejo by initially copying them onto a grid graph paper.
This Waikiki release (coding by Hollowman) was converted, but these ones were not: The Walk of Life Is Never a Walk on Straight Lines, Year of 1337. Mountain Dew C0de Red Odyssey was a combination.
I also agree with King Fisher.
EOM.
//macx
Boar's Head Tavern | byob.hopto.org:64128 |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
Quote:a release type of “C64 Converted Graphics”
Ha! First we need "C64 idiotic scheisse crack" though :) |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Quote:a release type of “C64 Converted Graphics”
Ha! First we need "C64 idiotic scheisse crack" though :)
Nah, we need PETSCII first. =) |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting PeacemakerNah, we need PETSCII first. =)
Yes, PETSCII conversions should be put in the same type of release. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
"deleted"? |
| |
Iridon
Registered: Dec 2023
Posts: 5 |
So again. I find the topic confusing as it seems there is both "accusations" of stealing artwork and using tools to generate the image.
For me its clear now its an conversion of a reference image (Like I myself did a lot on Amiga and probably still will do) so that is out of the air.
What I find interesting is Talents amazing technique and style. And again I am deeply impressed by it and more wanted to break down how I think he works.
He has generated a master palette from the C64 16 colors, much some PC EGA games did. And then starts out and convert the image to this palette which is his main work area. He do an amazing job to clean up and polish and make sure the right colors are picket.
Then this image is converted to the 16 c64 color with automated checkerboard dithering. Results depending on the image and the pre work in the hi color version.
So in the end its still a lot of cleanup to do and all.
What impresses me the most is the core idea and also how he managed to learn how to pick the right colors from this HIRES palette that converts to the right C64 image.
How much of this is done by hand or by conversion I do not know. What I do know is that he has this conversion in his head and fingers as much as any tool so for me its not really important.
Key is the amount of pixel perfection skill to end up with the end result. And to be able to construct this workpipeline regardless of how it is. Is pure genious |
| |
Iridon
Registered: Dec 2023
Posts: 5 |
So here is an example to those who says its "JUST" to convert
Top left: original photo.
Top Middle: converted in PS to the master palette I think Talent use.
Top right: converted to C64 palette.
It look shit right?
Now take the bottom row.
Bottom left: This is using the master palette (how its done lets talk about later.)
Mottom middle: converted in PS to C64 palette.
Bottom right: Talents picture
As you can see the autoconversion I did from the bottom left is not bad. Not far off at all from the one Talent did. Its mostly cleanup and some realigment done.
But how did it become so great?
Because the bottom left is pixeled to allow this autoconversion to work well. Its using colors that will look ok from the "dither palette" and it uses semi dithering, diagonal line steaks to facilitate a good conversion.
So for me it do not really matter how much Talent is spending his time in. Is it in the 256 color HIRES palette image or in the 16 color PEPTO image.
Who kmows? who cares? I bet it depends on picture mood etc etc. Maybe he has now become so used to this workflow that he is converting this in his head as fast and do a lot of the polishing in the end 16 color image or maybe he has become a god of knowing of how the 256 converts to 16 and powerpixel most of the time there and converts and just cleanup in 16 color.
Point again. It takes tremendous skillset to work in both of those modes. And to take the original image which as you can see uses VERY different colors and manage it to translate so well to the end 160x200 16 color C64 palette glorious masterpiece its far from trivial.
And as many says. people who think so are free to also start popping out "talent style images"
I myself tested with a few images to brute force convert and it looked like vomit. I think I myself would spend most of my time in the 256 mode but it would take me hours and hours still to both pixel the image there but to learn how use the right set that would end up good in 16 color. And to be able to use this mode less and less and just do it straight on in 16 color would take even more houndreds of hours.
So I dont call if its called art or whatever but anyone whol dismisses the true craftmanship that Talents images are, well as said nothing is stopping them from doing it themselves. |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 269 |
Iridon: What are we looking at here? Is it created from Talent's image or the ZBrush image? How would it turn out if you applied your magic to a random image from the internet, like taking a snippet of Gandalf's face and running it through your wizardry? (http://tinyurl.com/3yxbc96a)
Did I miss something in your post? Have you generated something very similar, or is it all based on Talent's insanely great pixels throughout?
If you've developed a method to achieve similar results, that's intriguing regardless. Looking forward to understanding more!
Edit: While writing this, you posted more with additional examples, but still, can you simply swap images and achieve similar results? If so, that's the pipeline stuff I've been trying to figure out after all this came up. However, your tests seem to involve a more technical approach compared to my ninja moves. I'm just a humble idiot who had to make several conversions and then blend them all to even attempt simulating something like Talent's pixels.
Ok I see what you say... as my assumption also... I could create a look alike bad and not great but to make it that real like Talent do is insane! |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Iridon: What are we looking at here? Is it created from Talent's image or the ZBrush image? How would it turn out if you applied your magic to a random image from the internet, like taking a snippet of Gandalf's face and running it through your wizardry? (http://tinyurl.com/3yxbc96a)
Did I miss something in your post? Have you generated something very similar, or is it all based on Talent's insanely great pixels throughout?
If you've developed a method to achieve similar results, that's intriguing regardless. Looking forward to understanding more!
Edit: While writing this, you posted more with additional examples, but still, can you simply swap images and achieve similar results? If so, that's the pipeline stuff I've been trying to figure out after all this came up. However, your tests seem to involve a more technical approach compared to my ninja moves. I'm just a humble idiot who had to make several conversions and then blend them all to even attempt simulating something like Talent's pixels.
Ok I see what you say... as my assumption also... I could create a look alike bad and not great but to make it that real like Talent do is insane!
Pal: Where you see the keyboard, the source is ofcourse Talents c64 koala pic. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 446 |
Quoting PeacemakerPal: Where you see the keyboard, the source is ofcourse Talents c64 koala pic.
ofcourse |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 243 |
Quote: Quoting PeacemakerPal: Where you see the keyboard, the source is ofcourse Talents c64 koala pic.
ofcourse
hahah =) |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
@Iridon,
A converter can only approximate the original color with c64 colors which is not whats happening. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
By now all i want to know is how i can make such stunning pictures with a few clicks. Apparently no skills are involved. At all. |
| |
Joe
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 224 |
I missed this tread completely and it's a sad one. It makes me disgusted at all points, I will throw up every time I see Vangelis or hear his music further on. If I ever see any of those diagonal dithering again I will stay home from work. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1033 |
Quoting JoeIf I ever see any of those diagonal dithering again I will stay home from work.
hahaha, nice one Joe! <3
best line in this thread |
| |
Iridon
Registered: Dec 2023
Posts: 5 |
Quote: Iridon: What are we looking at here? Is it created from Talent's image or the ZBrush image? How would it turn out if you applied your magic to a random image from the internet, like taking a snippet of Gandalf's face and running it through your wizardry? (http://tinyurl.com/3yxbc96a)
Did I miss something in your post? Have you generated something very similar, or is it all based on Talent's insanely great pixels throughout?
If you've developed a method to achieve similar results, that's intriguing regardless. Looking forward to understanding more!
Edit: While writing this, you posted more with additional examples, but still, can you simply swap images and achieve similar results? If so, that's the pipeline stuff I've been trying to figure out after all this came up. However, your tests seem to involve a more technical approach compared to my ninja moves. I'm just a humble idiot who had to make several conversions and then blend them all to even attempt simulating something like Talent's pixels.
Ok I see what you say... as my assumption also... I could create a look alike bad and not great but to make it that real like Talent do is insane!
So I hope this clear now how "my" pipeline work right?
I "discovered" this by taking 4 of Talents images into photoshop. Duplicating each one to a layer above itself. Setting that layer to 50% opacity and moving it one pixel down. And Magic! Suddenly you have a "normal" non dithered 256 color image.
Basically you make the image in 256 colors (i think its 240 or so) with the palette that is the blended values between two of the C64 16colors.
And then they conversion seem to make it pretty good in Photoshop. One could also of course write a pretty basic converter. You make and image in 160x100 and then it reads the pixels and creates a new "pixel" of 2x2 pixels where you just have a look up. the 256 color index point to an index of 256 dither colors so to speak.
My point was that no you can not take any image, manually created or converted down from a true color photo. It will look like shit. So its still a lot of work to know what of the dither colors look good.
So for me as long as the artwork is original take no credit really from the artist. Its just speeding up the tedios ordered dithering.
Even with using reference I feel its a great work Talent does.
Its just that I do not see his "style" so unique anymore. Its a conversion of 256 colors down to optical ones using 2x2 dither pixels from 16 colors. (actually this is how the palette Sierra used in their games was made. Funny part is that on emulator now you can recreate the images without dither.
https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/8704/what-wa.. |
| |
Iridon
Registered: Dec 2023
Posts: 5 |
Quote: Pal: Where you see the keyboard, the source is ofcourse Talents c64 koala pic.
So I tested with Gandalf. As no its not a very nice end result. But that is also expected as the converion from the original image to the 256 color "hipalette" one looked so so.
So what would be interested is how the end result would look if I cleaned up the 256 color image and did some test what colors converts best to the "DitherLowPalette" If I get some time this weekend I might do that.
 |
| |
Iridon
Registered: Dec 2023
Posts: 5 |
Quote: @Iridon,
A converter can only approximate the original color with c64 colors which is not whats happening.
Oh with this tech it do not need to aproximate. It knows.
Any of the 256 Hicolor color indexes is created from blending 2 of the 16 C64 colors together. So asuming the image is half res in height = each pixel is 2 pixel high, when converting it down to an image with double the height this "pure" color (created from the c16 colors) will be replaced with those two colors = opically the EXACT color.
Will that always look good? Of course not. But it will be an exact conversion of the pure 256 picture to a 16 color checkerboard aligned dithered picture. No approximation at all.
Basically its an additive color pixel version of how the printing process works. There its higher resolution and subtractive instead. So look at any printed magazine that feature a photo as source. They look almost the same, so its not really an aproximation.
Or to be clear. Yes its an approximation of course but one that depening on color, resolution, light can look almost exact as the original.
Remember that with printing its only FOUR color. Not 16, and still most photos you view in your daily life you percieve as having "all colors" :) |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 269 |
...is it something I do not understand here? looks nothing like the results your hunting for? |
| |
Morpheus
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 152 |
Many have inquired about my perspective on this discussion. I have been hesitant to share my thoughts as my concern with Talent is more on a personal level. However, I will focus my 50 cents on the graphical discussion now that the storm has settled here.
I don't think there's any reason to doubt that Talent can push pixels, and I don't believe he's using a conversion tool either. These are the rumours I've heard. Using modern tools is of course perfectly fine. You'd be stupid not to use them. Using reference images and AI are fine too, but if you most of the time if not *all* of the time use reference images (and/or AI) that you just pixel over, where's the originality in that? For Talent, this would be true for his work in the Vangelis tribute, Purple, Wonderland 14 and perhaps other demos. As an artist, where does the joy lie in taking too many shortcuts? I've also experimented with this approach because I was mesmerised by the modern tool I was using, but it's not something I'm particularly proud of.
I firmly believe that graphics submitted in graphic competitions should be 100% original. On parties in the past, it was easier to spot if an image was wired and we'd all scream ”Lamer!” in unison and downvote those kind of images because we believed in originality. While I'm uncertain if an ethics document is the ideal way forward or if people will give it due consideration, I know that I'll always favour original artwork over a copied, wired, or AI-generated piece.
I hope that future discussions can be held peacefully and that something good comes out of all this. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
I'll have to do some nitpicking - i keep reading 256 colors, produced by mixing the 16 C64 colors. That however is wrong - It's 136 colors that you get this way. |
| |
Flotsam
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 81 |
Quote: I'll have to do some nitpicking - i keep reading 256 colors, produced by mixing the 16 C64 colors. That however is wrong - It's 136 colors that you get this way.
Even more nitpicking... if you take this literally, you should only count colour combinations that have different colours mixed: "Any of the 256 Hicolor color indexes is created from blending 2 of the 16 C64 colors together."
In that case the number of combinations would be just 120. But I'm guessing the phrase shouldn't be taken literally and f.e black + black is considered a colour mix. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3035 |
Original
Quoting MorpheusAs an artist, where does the joy lie in taking too many shortcuts?
I understand that for a demo, when there's a need to create numerous graphics efficiently, shortcuts and effective working methods are necessary, and that's perfectly fine. I also believe it's acceptable to use tools for "pose-changing" or "3D-rendering" to position your main protagonist in various poses for consistent storytelling. In the case of Wonderland XIV, that would be the character of Alice.
However, the problem arises when the character of Alice turns out to be an uncredited adaptation of Marvel's character Storm, created by at least two different artists. I find this approach lacking dignity. To me, the spectrum from unoriginality (lameness) to creativity (coolness) has several levels, so let's discuss them:
0. Lame
You convert an image (the tool and process is not important here) and pass is as your own artwork, no credit to the original author and no mention of source material, no retouch, just straight conversion.
1. Ignorant and rude
You convert the original, heavily retouch it and pass is as your own artwork, no credit to original author and no mention of source material
2. Satisfactory
You convert the original, heavily retouch it, give credit to the original author and mention source material/inspiration somewhere in note to the demo or in credits part.
3. Fair and decent
You seek the author's permission or at least notify them of your intention to use their work, convert the original, heavily retouch it, credit the original author, and mention the source material or inspiration in a note or in the credits part of the demo.
4. Immaculate
You obtain the 3D model, create your own poses or base for your artwork, do all the detailing and texturing yourself, and credit the model's original creator.
5. Admirable
You create all the sketches and artwork yourself, regardless of the original medium, convert it, and do whatever you wish because it's your own work, your characters, your art. Sidenote: I even think that if you were able to pull it of all using AI, and make it look absoloutely fabulous AND most importantly mentioned that in your note or demo credits, that would be perfectly acceptable border case.
6. Praiseworthy
You draw or pixel everything from scratch using a cross-platform graphics tool, which might be a bit overkill but is still reasonable.
7. Awesomenessnessnesss
You pixel it all on C64 and let coders stitch it together (if it's 3 page horizontal scroll image for example) - you are crazy dude, srsly. But you are fkn' cool too. Everyone except of few haters will give you straight 10 as graphician (you wasted a lot of time, and your girlfriend left you, but nobody can take it from you, you made something that you can be proud of, and you can show it off on SIGGRAPH, get award for it and boast about it for eternity.
Now, let me ask you a question. Where do you think Talent's artwork of Alice and Astronaut drinking beer on moon falls on this scale, particularly in regards to the high production value and substantial effort invested in the Wonderland XIV demo?
Context: https://csdb.dk/release/?id=232980&show=trivia#trivia
---------------
And for those who think this topic should die off. Yes I think so too, but we should at least try to resolve it with mutual agreement. One side tried to propose something. Other (?) answered with counter accusations and a lame fake demo. I don't think anyone needs another round of that crap. It's obvious that we all have (ahem) history and not everything we did, or do is perfect, but it's in my opinion positive, to learn from that and try to evolve. Most of us are over 40, we won't live forever, but some of our creations might. Let's leave a flawless heritage. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5023 |
I find it disgusting that up until this point everyone did it, esp in demos, and now suddenly its a holy crusade of the oregano nazis against talent, IMHO this happens because his technique is too good they just have to find something to drag him down. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
Quote:In that case the number of combinations would be just 120. But I'm guessing the phrase shouldn't be taken literally and f.e black + black is considered a colour mix.
120 mixed plus 16 pure colors - of course :)
That said - this is also wrong :) The VICII produces slightly different colors in odd and even lines (on PAL anyway), so taking this into account - you get even more. (If you are converting into "textures" for something like 8x8/8x4 effects - knowing this can be useful) |
| |
Morpheus
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 152 |
CreaMD, it's intriguing to discuss, and I share the sentiment about Alice being derived from an existing character. The feeling becomes a little "meh" to me. It's not as special as I thought it was. Additionally, I sense that the tone in your writing is a bit too regulated for my taste. You should be free to create the stuff you want to create and in the way you choose, but at the same time, things have become more complicated with the easy shortcuts that you can take... I just hope people don't leave the scene because they feel that they can't compete against stuff done with AI, etc. or that they get frustrated over loosing against people that "cheat".
Oswald, I'm curious about the term "oregano nazis." Care to explain? In any case, personally, there's zero jealous involved. In fact, I'm not fond of his style at all. It's akin to the concept of quantization in music production; if you over-quantize, the music feels too rigid. Trivium, for instance, embodies this stiffness for me, and I sense a similar vibe in Talent's work. It's unfortunate that he's become the sole focus here, and I hope other artists employing a similar design approach as him will come forward for more constructive discussions. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
I just hope Talent won't quit the scene due to this recent witch hunt.
I didn't read all the posts in the thread, but it's not new to use reference gfx or even pure converts in top demos. But today it is? (Yes. It's a completely different thing in gfx compos). |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Unsure if Talent will quit or not, but unless actively reading these forums, it is simply a storm in a tea cup. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: I just hope Talent won't quit the scene due to this recent witch hunt.
I didn't read all the posts in the thread, but it's not new to use reference gfx or even pure converts in top demos. But today it is? (Yes. It's a completely different thing in gfx compos).
It isn't new, but the point of the discussion is whether it's really fair to use references/AI/conversion tools without making those processes clear to the audience. Morpheus mentioned that this knowledge made the graphics in Wonderland XIV less special to him and I'm confident that feeling would be fairly common. It could certainly affect voting if a demo using converted artwork was going up against a demo with high-quality, original pieces.
If Talent wants to quit that's up to him, but I know there are also some top graphicians who are feeling very demotivated by this unfairness.
Personally, I don't think there's much point in arguing about the past, but I know a lot of graphicians feel the honest and respectful thing to do in the future if for people to be more open about any shortcuts. |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 572 |
I hope nobody quits the scene over this...
What next? Coders quitting because story and animation demos make it to the top of the charts? Or those winning compos due to using ripped (and afaik unattributed?) graphics from a hundred games?
"The scene is the scene is the scene. Always has been, always will be."*
* - I have no idea what that means either.. but it's definitely a t-shirt quote. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11136 |
"Whatever they do, the scene always wins." |
| |
Raistlin
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 572 |
In the demoscene's electrifying race,
Where coders vie in digital embrace.
Breaking records with each line they trace,
In scrollers, bobs, a high-tech chase.
Plasma waves in hypnotic grace,
Side borders stretch, expand their space.
Bitmaps scroll in endless lace,
Sprite multiplexers in harmonious place.
Here, the story's in the code's pace,
Not in words, but in the technical base.
In every byte, a hidden face,
Of excellence in the coder's case.
A world where algorithms interlace,
In the demoscene's record-breaking space.
Narrative tales may bring some zest,
But the real scene is where #CodeIsKing. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4606 |
Quote: It isn't new, but the point of the discussion is whether it's really fair to use references/AI/conversion tools without making those processes clear to the audience. Morpheus mentioned that this knowledge made the graphics in Wonderland XIV less special to him and I'm confident that feeling would be fairly common. It could certainly affect voting if a demo using converted artwork was going up against a demo with high-quality, original pieces.
If Talent wants to quit that's up to him, but I know there are also some top graphicians who are feeling very demotivated by this unfairness.
Personally, I don't think there's much point in arguing about the past, but I know a lot of graphicians feel the honest and respectful thing to do in the future if for people to be more open about any shortcuts.
I agree that original pieces of pixel art impress me more - feels more real and dedicated, so I somewhat agree to what Morpheus said. Still I haven't seen this kind of pretty strong reaction, pointing out every source everywhere - on Facebook, in Trivia, here in this thread etc, before. Is it because Wonderland is a high end demo and ended up high at X? |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3035 |
My timeline of involvement:
1. Read this thread. Then the other one.
2. Notice voice of sanity vs bull.
3. Notice Talents comment under some release clearly indicating that he feels that he is treated unfair. (Let's thank to his defenders for this false feeling of entitlement)
4. Notice Bob's bragging about SIGGRAPH, that is an event clearly outside our bubble. (btw. I wonder what would their bubble say if they knew about Emma Frost/Marvel IP being butchered for this demo)
5. I learn about WL XIV gfx being not original. Start digging. Astronaut, Emma Frost...
6. I decide to keep my mouth shut (publicly) for "better good".
7. Joe releases No Way Away, i like it, so I post latest Joe's gfx on FB labelling it: "Friendly reminder about existence of contemporary C64 art. ;-)" (it get's surprisingly high amount of reactions, dunno why)
8. Some unknown genius releases the ArtRecollection. Was he triggered by that FB post? I don't know. I don't care.
8. I post the trivia in WL XIV
9. Unknown genius updates his entry adding "credits".
10. Morpheus bumps this thread back by his comment.
11. I post my statement here and later on FB.
As far as my motivation is concerned. All I want is that we stopped pretending that it's okay to operate like this. Let's have at least a common decency and be level 2. give credit where credit is due for general releases.
As far as graphics competition is concerned, and ways to make it fair (plus practical implementations), that is far more complex topic. The actual artists involved are trying to discuss that. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3035 |
Quote: It isn't new, but the point of the discussion is whether it's really fair to use references/AI/conversion tools without making those processes clear to the audience. Morpheus mentioned that this knowledge made the graphics in Wonderland XIV less special to him and I'm confident that feeling would be fairly common. It could certainly affect voting if a demo using converted artwork was going up against a demo with high-quality, original pieces.
If Talent wants to quit that's up to him, but I know there are also some top graphicians who are feeling very demotivated by this unfairness.
Personally, I don't think there's much point in arguing about the past, but I know a lot of graphicians feel the honest and respectful thing to do in the future if for people to be more open about any shortcuts.
I agree |
| |
Dr. TerrorZ
Registered: Oct 2013
Posts: 11 |
I saw the Vangelis image, thought "ok that's a rather nice, very technical rendition".
After it was confirmed to be made from a photo, I was not surprised. It did not change my opinion all that much. In the context of the demo I felt it was semi-ok, people did this with images of Jarre etc. in Amiga days and with even less effort.
These days, it would have been good to make some note of it, though.
Then I saw the Wonderland image in really quick passing, just thought "well that's super nice, apart from maybe the strange decorative border and some overdithering in the background".
After I learned it was copied from an illustration, was somewhat disappointed, again perhaps not that much surprised. This time I didn't think the "demo context" rescues it.
Maybe if a demo is something where outsiders are shown "what the C64 can do" then it no longer matters what the human talent (heh) is capable. But I think the C64 audiences should be made clear what is being demonstrated? Original work or a fancy dithering algorithm? I no longer know.
Now that I see that Talent is credited with roughly a handful of works, and the most important ones are copies, I don't think it's unfair at all to criticize the practice. It doesn't need to get all that personal, though... |
| |
Hate Bush
Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 454 |
Quote: "Whatever they do, the scene always wins."
*whines |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 117 |
Quote:story and animation demos make it to the top of the charts?
Oh, we've seen and heard a loud whining concert from Oswald about this (about E2IRA). However, when it comes to gfx he has a whole other, diametrically opposite, set of "principles" and feelings. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: I agree that original pieces of pixel art impress me more - feels more real and dedicated, so I somewhat agree to what Morpheus said. Still I haven't seen this kind of pretty strong reaction, pointing out every source everywhere - on Facebook, in Trivia, here in this thread etc, before. Is it because Wonderland is a high end demo and ended up high at X?
I think these feelings have probably been bubbling in the background for some time and it's taken a particularly high-profile release to blow the doors off. Personally I'd rather keep the focus on transparency rather than individual people or releases, although it's helpful to have examples that illustrate the problem. |
