| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
Double Screen Compo Voting
Okay - all entries are in and it is time for voting.
Take your time and check the pictures properly. If you like to check it on a C64, I'd recommend to turn off the volume, because music tends to alter atmosphere. Now here come the rules:
---
CHOOSE 3 FAVORITES - NO MORE - NO LESS
SEND YOUR CHOICE VIA PM TO ENTHUSI OR ME
OR BY MAIL TO << COMPO[AT SPAMSUCKS]C64PIXELS[DOT]COM >>
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET YOUR HANDLE/GROUP OR NAME
---
Deadline for voting is June 7th 2011 (know it is a long term but c64pixels-visitors are watching random)
Good luck to all contestants !
---
Looking Outward by Celtic, code by Zielok
Additional content according compo rules: Music
Format: MultiColor
---
Monroe 6569 by Diggr
Format: Charmode
---
Asteroidmine by Grass, code by Cruzer
Format: MultiColor
---
The Raven by Dane
Additional content according compo rules: Dark red and dark grey are laced
Format: MultiColor
---
CARGO by Twoflower, code by Cruzer
Additional content according compo rules: Music
Picture format: MultiColor, 4-colors, Colorscheme is matching Charmode
---
A Kind of Magic by Yazoo, code by Axis
Additional content according compo rules: Music, scrolltext (can be disabled by pressing spacebar)
Picture format: MultiColor
 |
|
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
Wow, the competitors make this a difficult vote.
Downloading the entries I recognized it has become common behaviour to upload files in .prg format. Come on, this is still C64 and not VICE/CCS64 world. Give your programs a 16 chars file name and put them into a .t64 or .d64. Thanks. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
Any rules for selfvoting? E.g. can I vote for entries using my scroll routine? |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Veto, you've got a PM with my votes, including short reviews of all pictures to explain my choices.
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
|
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
I feel like I need to change my votes now... :/
Original work should be honoured. Inspiration is ok, of course, but when it is more or less the same pic transferred I remain not impressed. I believe Twoflower added more own work to his pic than Dane, Celtic and Diggr did on theirs.
If I was in the compo I would be pissed off if I competed with "wirejobs", and noone cared. I think it is disrespectful to the artists that worked their asses off pixeling day and night.
I hope my thoughts above leads to discussions about this matter, and just not hatred and fights. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Priceless!
would either of the 2 final competitors like to take this time to confess anything?
Steve |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
^^ What Hedning said! |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
My votes don't change with this knowledge, although it's a bit disturbing to see how little is actually fully pixeled...
Amazingly good detective work, btw :-D |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
^^ What Sander said. |
| |
Conrad
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 847 |
Perhaps people don't have spare hours to be make original stuff these days?
But yeah, I'm very disappointed as well. Forgive me for being an arse, but why are we always in a scene where being voted the best always counts on the scener name rather than the quality of the release?? I couldn't give a shit if there was a picture released by Secret Man... if that picture is original and awesome (and scene-drama-free), I would vote it 10. Sorry, but you guys should know better. |
| |
irwin
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 6 |
^^ What Mermaid said. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
Kudos to the compo participants who managed to get two fullscreen gfx done in time.
Not to forget the required scroll routines.
I really like the obvious mixture of entries (total lack of boobs and dragsons even).
The voting rules are strict by the way. Only votes that name 3 entries will be counted.
All information about the entries is given here:
http://c64pixels.com/compo/doublescreen
If you rank your votes (so far everyone who voted, did) the votes will be weighted (3:2:1 first to third),
otherwise each of the 3 named entries receives 2 points.
You are entitled not to vote of course ;-) but in particular this approach gains alot by many voters.
I see none of the artists who contributed nagging around - maybe they live a happier life, hehe?
For general happyness I suggest to participate next time...
Cheers and thanks again for those who contributed and thanks in advance for the voters who
appreciate the entries.
All votes as PM here to me or veto or via email.
enthusi :)
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quote:I see none of the artists who contributed nagging around - maybe they live a happier life, hehe?
For general happyness I suggest to participate next time...
Really? For general happyness? How exactly would it make Hedning happier to take part in a competition against copied and wired pictures, considering he expressed the exact opposite opinion in his post above?
As for describing someone's perfectly valid opinion on the matter as "nagging around", well, no comment. |
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
This whole "copying other people's work without telling the audience about it is fine, stop nagging" attitude is kinda lame, IMO. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
Copying other people's work to C64 is definitely ok, since it's an art in itself to make it look good, especially in limited modes like this. But of course you should admit it right away instead of getting "busted" afterwards. |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
I'd like to add that yes, i did a copy, but before enterring i explained to veto how i did the pic, and asked if it was appropriate. Also my pic is tagged on c64pixels with the original artist and production company so it can easily be found.
Yes, i copy, and therefor a pic by f.e. Grass is way more impressive then mine.
I would like to state that most 98% of the pics i do are wirejobs/converts etc.etc. I still spend hours and hours on them refining, adding pixels, removing pixels, etc. but i wanted it out there so i dont get accused for anything in the future.
and lastly: besides 4 or 5 extremely gifted pixellers like mermaid and i think STE , I think loads of people use this method. I am wondering who would like to claim or state that they never do this r have done it. |
| |
Ksubi
Account closed
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 87 |
Maybe next time the competition could be of one default picture and everyone does their own version of it? Anyway, some fine art work here, congrats to everyone who entered. |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
Guys, chillax a bit before the flamewar begins again. It's all about fun.
The original author of my pic (NOEEKO) was listed under the entry on the c64pixels.com website so it was no secret it was a convert from the very beginning.
Now, the trick is how do you squeeze thousands (if not million) colours palette into 11 colours (hires/multi char mode) and still preserve the high quality of the original image. It took me a lot of hours (besides coding my own pixel editor and displayer) to tidy up pixels and make the details looking good. Haven't added anything from myself as I wasn't supposed to have asked the author for permission to USE his work but nor REMIX.
I made the pic merely to challenge myself in the strange mode and after 12 years of not pixelling anything. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Cruzer: In general I agree (especially the bit about showing the original right away), but I'm not convinced that it is ok to submit a copy to a graphics competition. I still have a problem with that - I'm fairly sure most people don't just look at the pixeling and execution when they judge a picture, they also look at the motif, the composition etc. - no matter how impressive a c64 copy is technically it is still a copy of someone else's work. To me personally it is infinitely more interesting to see a picture that someone came up with themselves, even if the anatomy is a bit off.
Celtic: I don't believe that "almost everyone does it anyway" is a good excuse. Yes, by all means go ahead and copy (and I mean *copy*, not retouch scans) great artists, that is a great way to get better at drawing and learning about anatomy and such. I have no problem with that, it'd be nice to see the original pics though. But is it really necessary to submit those (practice) copies to a competition and possibly beat people who came up with their own motives from scratch? Why not come up with something yourself? |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
Quote: Cruzer: In general I agree (especially the bit about showing the original right away), but I'm not convinced that it is ok to submit a copy to a graphics competition. I still have a problem with that - I'm fairly sure most people don't just look at the pixeling and execution when they judge a picture, they also look at the motif, the composition etc. - no matter how impressive a c64 copy is technically it is still a copy of someone else's work. To me personally it is infinitely more interesting to see a picture that someone came up with themselves, even if the anatomy is a bit off.
Celtic: I don't believe that "almost everyone does it anyway" is a good excuse. Yes, by all means go ahead and copy (and I mean *copy*, not retouch scans) great artists, that is a great way to get better at drawing and learning about anatomy and such. I have no problem with that, it'd be nice to see the original pics though. But is it really necessary to submit those (practice) copies to a competition and possibly beat people who came up with their own motives from scratch? Why not come up with something yourself?
Before i say anything: we are all old enough to make this an interesting discussion without flamewars or angry comments. So i am quite sure that wont happen. Besides, i think all participating posters have a pretty decent relationship with eachother, no angryness or hatred there.
Perhaps it is time to have another of these discussion, it's been a while.
Mermaid: perhaps it is not a good excuse. But i dont use it as an excuse. I do this pixelling for fun, and i think it is fun to make something that looks nice, wethere it is mine or not. And well, when they would be 100% mine, usually they suck donkey balls :) but thats a whole other thing.
But yes, maybe i should rethink my enterring future competitions, coz in the end in this compo i admire Yazoo's and Grass's handyworks the most. I guess in the end it is a question of ethics, and i will need to think about it, wether or not i should be enterring or not.
Also, i think this discussion is good because for the next competitions the rules should state some clarity about this way of pixelling, and how it effects the competition.
Lastly: my pic took me about 12-14 hours (this is an estimate) to complete. a lot of time pixelling the errors out, making it looks nice, and well, i call it repixelling. The sides are mine, but indeed that was a minimal effort, and not worth taking into account.
lastly2: vanja, could you make a fading pic (from original to c64 pic) for mine like you did with Dane's. I am trying to do that myself, but it aint working, and i would really like to see how that would look :) |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quote:I made the pic merely to challenge myself in the strange mode and after 12 years of not pixelling anything.
That's fine, but then the picture you made to challenge yourself somehow ended up in a graphics competition, and that's the part that some people obviously have a problem with. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
My primary idea about gfx-compos is that the artists make their own original pictures. He och she can of course use a lot of techniques and platforms to create the base for it, as long as the artist actually creates a unique picture. He and she can be inspired by various sources: be it Vallejo, Alien-movies, zombies, Marilyn Monroe, sci-fi, whatever, and also partly resemble original work by another artist, as long as the artist did not copy the whole idea, motif, composition and everything.
It may be interesting in another way how to make the best conversion of a already existing piece of art to the c64, but then it is wrong to put in in the same compo as original pieces of art on the c64. I don't say that it's easy doing great conversions, but a conversion or copy is another thing than doing a unique piece of art - therefore they cannot compete with eachother.
I do understand that some of the competitors did show their sources, and was open with it. That's good, but still a lot of voters will say "Now, that's awesome gfx!" and vote for a copy thinking it is original work. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Celtic: Sure, I'll do a gif for you. And I don't mean to flame anyone really.
Celtic, I think you give yourself too little credit, I think you could come up with something great on your own if you give yourself the time. If you have 12-14 hours to spend on touching up a scan, you should have 12-14 hours to invest in something original too.
I know it's scary to do something on your own and no one wants to be ridiculed for the work they do. But hey, babysteps, you can do it. Go from touching up and colouring scans to copying pictures you like by hand. Yes, the copies won't be perfect then, but there will be more of *you* in them, and you will get better, and eventually you will move on to creating collages where you copy bits from different pictures and try to make them fit together nicely (again I mean copying *by hand* here) and hey, those pics will have even more of you in them, and one day you will find that you don't always need to copy, that you know now what works and what you can do.
It's like learning to ride a bike in a way. Pure converts is a bit like sitting in your dad's bicycle basket. Retouching a scan is more like riding a tricycle. Copying something by hand is like riding a bike with support wheels. So get off the tricycle and give that bike with support wheels a try. |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
I must say thats a pretty sweet metaphor you're using, kudosfor that :)
perhpas i should indeed step onto the bike... we'll see about that one. Thanks for taking the time to make the gif! |
| |
Yazoo
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 227 |
hehe celtic :) so you admired grass's or my pic the most? may i remind you of your comment for diggers picture?
Celtic:
"My personal favourite, even with the new entries by Yazoo and Twoflower (which are completely awesome aswell). This one just kicks ass. It is great to have Digger back, and even better his gfx are awesome! Well done sir!"
don't take it serious :) for me it is absolutely ok, you like another picture better. i just couldnt resist to quote, when i read your post ;-)
eventually i will add something to this discussion myself later on or tonight. this discussion is not too unimportant i think. |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
well spotted sir! :) but admiring someone's handywork and having a favourite are two different things. I prefer Digger's pic indeed, based purely on the way it looks. However i admire yours and Grass's more then Digger's because of the handywork.
but in the end Diggers still is my fav :) |
| |
Yazoo
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 227 |
alright |
| |
Cresh
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 354 |
What is an art and what is not chapter 78653274013418.
Thank you. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
There you go, as requested. |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
Thanks! |
| |
Luca
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 178 |
^^ What Mace said.
Plus, results will tell us everything we need to.
Besides, incidentally my votes to next JSL pics will magically raise +1 :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
there are two pictures in the compo that bloody scream "LOOK HOW I WAS CONVERTED!!!!!!!!". one of them was repeatedly praised as original art in this thread. and the other is just dull and a slap in the face of every compo organiser, IMHO.
thumbs up for yazoo (and jsl) :)
|
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
http://c64pixels.com/celtic/lookingoutward
http://c64pixels.com/dane/raven |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
I think what I found a bit frustrating viewing all these entries is that I spent quite a lot of time trying to come up with an original entry, but in the end, couldn't create something I was happy with, so decided not to enter at all. If I'd have just gone down the copy route, that process would've taken 15 mins and from then on it's just a case of doing a decent pixel job, which I'm pretty comfortable with.
I know I've released my fair share of copies in past, though it's a LONG time since I released a straight copy into a compo. |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
What kept me from entering the compo was mainly that I thought I had no time pixeling something.
Then, at one moment very close to the deadline, I thought: well, what the hell, I just join in with a converted picture, just for having entered in a GFX compo, while I consider myself more of a coder.
At the very last moment I decided not to submit my convert, just because it felt 'note done' to join in wihtout too much effort.
Wish I had :-)
Then again, luckily I didn't.
Now I can just use it as a demo part in one of my upcoming productions :-D
That said, I think that not many (if any) of the competitors made good use of two screens.
They just spread the picture without making use of the effect of a partly hidden picture at first sight... |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
I should add that when I say "all" these entires, I mean the straight copied ones, of course! |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quote:
It's like learning to ride a bike in a way. Pure converts is a bit like sitting in your dad's bicycle basket. Retouching a scan is more like riding a tricycle. Copying something by hand is like riding a bike with support wheels. So get off the tricycle and give that bike with support wheels a try.
Beautiful metaphore indeed. And i completely agree on this point of view.
There's a whole spectrum between work from e.g. DATA-LAND (spectrum title screen conversions) and original artwork from e.g. Electric. |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
this weeks motto: oliver, you have created a monster
(sorry for the quote, steve)
discussing the wired entries is good and hopefully a long term eye opener. you can blame me in person that there have been no exclusion in the rules for this - though i barely believe that i.e. workstages would change much (bzzz... subconsciousness mode... breakpoint2010... heidi??). take a closer look at recent major compos and you will see that this is a case of ignorance for years. also i do not believe that this would have solved the low attendance, which is the other big problem here. btw i requested the originals for tagging on c64pixels (obviously nobody noticed). except dane's, guess why.
what we have here is a competition with limited attention. thanks to this there are two original artworks, two elaborate copies and two 1:1 converts. the voting is about selecting 50% of them. if this still requires a compromise in your eyes, you may weight your choice.
please support the sceners who spent their free time for this competition. please vote.
ps: i have deep respect for you, celtic, facing the tribunal is anything but granted. |
| |
Yazoo
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 227 |
you did not create a monster :) the compo just revealed once again, that alot of ppl want to go the easy way these days. and when i check out some of the votes, alot of other szeners dont seem to care.
now we had this discussion again - which is good. we should have this discussion more often... when i remember the big gfx-competition @ x'10 party, i think more than 50% of all those pictures are based on scans with good or not so good touching up.
what i hope is, that the voters and commenters at csdb (and compovoters ofcoz) will be a little more sensitised, and award those - who put alot of their time into creating something special on their own.
because when votes are low, and comments are less friendly for pure scans - they will more and more dissappear i bet.
so i am more pointing my finger at those, giving high votes for obvious scans than towards the "artists" making them. you guys are the reason for 1:1 scans being existent. its part of human being to want the easy way with getting success (not cool, but just normal i guess.)
so i wish the voters and commenters would make them less successful.
i mean, check out the votes for some of those "pictures"... some of them are really high.
and i dont say that, because i want anyones votes for my pic, just because i spent like 25-30 hours for it. i say this, because i would like to see the szene change a bit (which wont happen most likely).
when i want to see a most perfect copy of a photo i wouldnt need a c64 at all - i could just stick to my pc.
respect to all those, who keep spending their time with real pixelling.
just my 2 cents. |
| |
celticdesign
Registered: Oct 2005
Posts: 149 |
isn't it pretty "lame" if a graphican do scanning/digitizing pictures!?! any artistical work should be unique and not be a more or less simple copy... hmmm ok, unless you do a well improved version (the same counts for music).
however, i adjust my votings now... so yazoo should be the true winner of this compo :-) |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
I don't think it's lame in all cases.
Celtic, Diggr and probably Dane too, did quite some hand pixeling on top of the conversion to get it right.
You need to get rid of colour clashes and bad dithering, after all.
Also you need to put some effort in the scan to get the colours right, especially when the colour range is narrow.
This too can be quite a job.
However, but using C64PIXELS as the compo medium, a lot of people (including myself) didn't notice that the creators mentioned their sources.
So quite a lot of us thought they were cheating...
This is what triggered this whole dicussion, I think. |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
@Mace: My pic even has the original author tag on it ;-)
I (sadly) think the golden era of hand pixelled gfx is gone forever due to at least two reasons:
1. Life is faster people are spending too much time playing with useless apps on their mobiles hoping to make their life actions more efficient (= waste of time and illusion IMHO but that's another topic) ;-)
2. Effort/reward ratio no way you can hand pixel 2 screen pic in 12-14 hrs, even with limited palette and sophisticated pixelling tools (brushes, dither box, etc) and it took me similar time to code the editor (http://c64.blog2t.net/slixed). I mean it's A LOT of time in REAL LIFE (yes, we're no longer in our teens).
3. There are great conversion tools (i.e. Timathes), which we haven't had in late '80s/early '90s you HAD to pixel by hand (or use "analogue" conversion methods)
Now, how about this idea (for the future):
Each artist uses his own "picture to pixel" mapping techniques, they're just a set of rules set in their brains, developed during pixelling process.
Now if we somehow manage to take this rules out by comparing original vs pixelled images, we'd be able to create a template unique to each graphician.
In theory it is (or it will be) possible to write i.e. a Phyton script (Mr. SID come on!) to convert any image into pixels using i.e. Hein or Carrion's pixelling style.
So I could create my original artwork in PhotoShop and then convert to C64 in a best possible way (preserving hand pixelling quality), it's even possible to breed a few styles (using genetic algorithms) to create hybrids (i.e. Mermaid/Archmage).
Sounds too scary? ;-) |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
But in the end is briliant that we are having this discussion. And i guess that besides some very awesome compo entries, this competition has been also good to get into this discussion.
@Veto: i dont feel like i am facing a tribunal. Most people posting here are people whom i have a great personal relationship with. and this might be a motivator to try and get rid of those tricicle wheels :)
Also, i think it is important to be honest, thats why i asked mermaid to make the pic fader from one to the next, to show i am not much different from Dane's.
Also asking for wokrstages is not something worth doing. I could spend some extra time downgrading my pic, adding it like workstages. that will just not work.
However, in the end i have decided i wont enter any compos anymore with my work. I think that will be the best for everyone.
This however will f.e. impact future competitions by c64pixels. I hope the people who are making the original masterpieces will compete next time, coz with those the amount of entries would be 2, which is just very sad.
at last i would like to say: thanks everyone for making this one an adult conversation without getting pissed or angry. :)
|
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
Quoting MaceHowever, but using C64PIXELS as the compo medium, a lot of people (including myself) didn't notice that the creators mentioned their sources.
So quite a lot of us thought they were cheating...
This is what triggered this whole dicussion, I think.
agree for this competition. but in fact i do not remember a single competition where somebody mentioned the original or references. it is kinda compo culture. |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
I agree with Celtic, very nice discussion here :)
I think the next gfx contests will have "original artwork only or dissq" clause. So that was the "last" time ;-)
What I like about us and scene getting older (aka dying) is that we find new ways to break the boundaries of the breadbox machine. Same hardware for nearly 30 years buy hey! And I think that's what made me back (although it's a very time consuming hobby). |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Celtic, you are looking at this the wrong way when you say you will not take part in compos anymore. Why not make something yourself and enter the compo with that, instead of staying away from compos?
As for this compo, the originals should absolutely have been added here at the same time the entries were added, instead of leaving it to other people to find the original pictures and post them. I'm sorry but the fact is that very few people who check out the entries here are going to notice a tiny little tag that says "OA Ronald McDonald" over at c64pixels.com.
Copies in a competition is lame, it is very lame, it is extremely lame, and touching up a scan is no work at all compared to actually making something from scratch.
I'm sorry but I certainly will not be taking part in this competition next year if it has the same "anything-goes" rules. |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
I've just got to say that I DID check c64pixels for any sign of sources and the only one I saw was a /T tag for Engine House 13 on Celtic's picture (which I had seen somewhere before, the reason for me to go looking). None of the others had noticeable tags at the time, maybe I was just being blind ;)
The fact those sources weren't posted on here, which of course is the site where the discussions/votes on the pictures was going to happen, means a lot of people just presumed all the pictures were original. Then it just looks like people are being "found out" when they've been honest in the first place.
I think running a competition FOR one site and then using another site to discuss entries etc has caused the confusion. C64pixels.com needs a forum ;)
|
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
Quote: Quoting MaceHowever, but using C64PIXELS as the compo medium, a lot of people (including myself) didn't notice that the creators mentioned their sources.
So quite a lot of us thought they were cheating...
This is what triggered this whole dicussion, I think.
agree for this competition. but in fact i do not remember a single competition where somebody mentioned the original or references. it is kinda compo culture.
Actually there's a plan for Silesia Party compos to ask authors to provide info about the source (no-copy, convert, haf-convert ect). This is to give the audience a bit of light on what they are voting.
Anyway, for this compo, there was no rule the art has to be original work. So IMHO all the fuss here is just pure drama :D
Also, IMHO it's the author responsibility (if one cares about) to provide the reference picture along with the pic. :P
And yeey, congrats to all sniffers who found originals. Should we vote for you too? :D
|
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Quoting Digger2. Effort/reward ratio no way you can hand pixel 2 screen pic in 12-14 hrs, even with limited palette and sophisticated pixelling tools (brushes, dither box, etc) The compo ran for 3 months.
What would be an acceptable time span in order to get hand pixeled original works?
Quoting Diggerand it took me similar time to code the editor (http://c64.blog2t.net/slixed). I mean it's A LOT of time in REAL LIFE (yes, we're no longer in our teens). Why did you write your own editor when there are other options that take less time?
No offence, just asking :-)
Quoting bookerAnyway, for this compo, there was no rule the art has to be original work. So IMHO all the fuss here is just pure drama :D Good point, yet...
Quoting bookerAlso, IMHO it's the author responsibility (if one cares about) to provide the reference picture along with the pic. :P ...there is such a thing as plagiarism.
And the line between that and copying work is very thin in this case.
Quoting bookerAnd yeey, congrats to all sniffers who found originals. Should we vote for you too? :D Now you are just being cynical... ;-) |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
@booker: The fuss is not just drama. I think it is about principles that needs discussion. WHAT are we voting on? Best first impression on a pic, be it a copy or original work? Or are we voting on the best conversion and the skill of finding nice models to scan and convert? Or are we voting on original artwork that has been made by hand, including idea, motif and everything? Or in the worst case: are we voting on favourite sceners? It has been a nice and good discussion above, and I don't think it's very constructive to shout "Drama" every time we discuss something and do not agree. The opposite would scare me. That we do not agree, and have the energy to discuss this topic is a proof that there is still energy and life in the scene, and that we care for it's future.
The whole voting system on csdb are freaky by the way (it does not cound amounts of votes etc. A prod that has 12 votes can outclass a prod that has 70 votes). The voting at parties, and also, per mail to this Double Screen Compo, are better - IF we know what we are voting on, that is. And that was my point. Over and out. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
Quote:Anyway, for this compo, there was no rule the art has to be original work. So IMHO all the fuss here is just pure drama :D
with that i can certainly agree =)
digger: i have infact started coding some kind of "genetic" algorithm to convert (right now just koala) gfx, the goal beeing pretty much what you say (produce a picture by "rules of graphics people", eventually leading a not so obviously converted look). so far however, the results are very disappointing =P |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
@Mace, @Hedning - I agree with you. This can be simply solved with compo rules (participants suppose to provide reference pictures, if used) and linking those along with publishing the entries. This also solves plagiarism (which we can talk about only if the author claims the originality but really the idea for the picture is not hers/his).
And I said "drama" because some people here are shouting on an unsolved debate, namely "is putting a converted picture/tune cover on a compo lame or not"?
Never did a gfx convert, but for tunes it can take a lot of time. So I'm sure some people spent long hours on doing these converts. And c'mon - most of them are good quality.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
btw, on BP (and now revision) the solution is this: "Entries have to be free of third party rights unless you have a legal license to use the given content.". also workstages must be submitted. and yes, we did disqualify pictures for beeing converted in the past. |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
Yep, that's also a solution (that is, if you want to disallow converts/covers).
|
| |
Shadow
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 355 |
Quote: Wow, the competitors make this a difficult vote.
Downloading the entries I recognized it has become common behaviour to upload files in .prg format. Come on, this is still C64 and not VICE/CCS64 world. Give your programs a 16 chars file name and put them into a .t64 or .d64. Thanks.
Having files in PRG-format actually makes it easier for me to run it on my real C64!
If something is in .PRG format, I just copy it to MMC, insert into my MMC64, start and instantly have it running on the real deal.
If it is in D64 I have to either use D64Editor to extract the PRG, or copy the D64 to MMC, find an empty disk, sit through a whole disk transfer wait and then load. I often end up just using VICE instead.
So .PRG doesn't necessarily mean "VICE-only-lamers" :D
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
The only problem with disallowing copies is people might just go out of their way to find more obscure things. Thankfully Twoflower was honest enough to submit his source image to Veto so obviously wasn't trying to hide it, but who else on here knew where it was from apart from me?
For all anyone knows a picture like Asteroid Mine might still be "based" on an image, like a book cover, so not 100% original.
I suppose anyone who tries to get away with it just suffers more when/if they're finally found out. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
demanding workstages usually works quite well to find out wether something is just a copy. if details pop up from nowhere, its usually clear why =) |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
Heidi |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
gpz: side note: Id call last BP's 1st (!) and 3rd place a copy/convert... |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
as for plain converts, look at #7 =)
other than that, #1 certainly is no "plain copy" (but a collage), same for that heidi pic (although just adding some background is questionable, agreed).
there were much more questionable pics with workstages were half of the pictures emerges from nowhere =) |
| |
Carrion
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 317 |
thanks mermaid for posting the referenced/copied pictures
you started this really interesting subject!
i wrote a long reply to this post thread but i struggled to post it since it wont bring anything new to what actually was said/writen here.
so let me just say few personal messages here before i lost the rest of my demoscene motivation
.
@digger
... it is possible to pixel 2 (and even 3) screener in 14 hrs. with timanthes? no problem.
@mace
i did all the gfx for schizarrion in 2 months (while changing a job, building a new house and rising two demanding boys) exluding long weekends and easter holidays.
i'll post references (originals soon on my blog)
I say: if you like to do it then you just do it - whenever you have time and most important - fun of doing it :)
@booker
if there will be no convertrs/ inspired pics/copys/references allowed on Silesia party then you will have sebaloz + kool one from piesiu
but thats ok with me.
@hedning
thank you for you voice on the csdb voting system subject
what i'll add to this system is a weight of the voter, like for example if the voter is in first 10 of best graphicians and he votes 10 for gfx piece it gets a higher weight that a first-time-voter who votes 10 if you know what i mean.
@mermaid
now i understand why you asked for a original of my Rose'09 picture :) i dont have problem with it since I never hide the fact that i copy or reference to something
(wait for my next post with all the references to schizarrion).
and at the end i just want to say that it is really amazing that Veto wanted to take a time to do c64pixels and this compo and its even kooler that we have differeces here at the forum and even like/hate eachother and fight with arguments. its really good to see that c64 is still alive i dont care who is right in this discussion as long as we have the discussions like that.
on the other hand we could have what atari guys have - a dieing demoscene ...
and YAZOO (my big VW backsit friend) is a winner here!!! if you think he is not then you'r a lamer
my personal top 3 for this compo is (from 1worst -10best)
yazoo - 9
digger - 7
celtic -6
|
| |
Cresh
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 354 |
Panie Tomaszu, nobody wants to ban unoriginal compo entries at Silesia.
The idea (I guess?) is to inform the audience before your entry is shown that it is based on this and that or it is 100% original. Quite fair, if there are people who care.
|
| |
Carrion
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 317 |
sorry for posting this here but i think it fits the discussion somehow
schizarrion references
http://carrionpixels.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/schizarrion-refer.. |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
I think Sinners All sums it up pretty well... |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
@carrion: "you" can ;D |
| |
Wile Coyote
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 646 |
Re creating an existing image on C64 is fine assuming each pixel is placed by hand, as it adds that human element. i.e. deciding what colours to use, how best to use limitation depending on gfx format, how best to anti alias, what to include, what not to include, then theres always some human error, similar to paintings.
Some of the worst images on C64 are those that have been converted using some program, with areas adjusted by hand in some half assed attempt to fool the viewer. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quote: I think Sinners All sums it up pretty well...
That's not about entering copies in compos though. |
| |
Joe
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 226 |
I never managed to find time to do one myself. I was a bit puzzled to see all those none-original ports myself. To learn we have to mimic, and that's something I believe most of us do in life since birth. I call myself a carrier of ideas, I am really nothing without my context, I mimic things along in order to understand underlying phenomena of composition, layout, construction, tectonic, space, light, materiality etc, life?. Which more or less rule things, part from the obvious economic premisses, order is! I was rather disappointed that the mimed work took on such proportions of 1:1 ports, but then again: Some are smarter than others and I vivid them in technical terms, regarding the conditions. I think they are nice. |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
@Joe: are your pixels not placed by the machine sometimes? I see a lot of nice patterns in your gfx and it looks you wrote an algorithm to spread them like that rather to pixel by hand. Otherwise you'd need to calculate each pixel position and color in your head :) |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
personally i have no aversion against using wires. but after the recent outings and discussion i agree that conditions need to be clear. putting a converted artwork in shape is work of course (guess it is even time-consuming in most cases), but it is like bug-fixing another persons code. on the other side a converter can be also a handy tool if you ie are creative in photoshop compositings, corel painter, 3d tools and plan to use this for a c64-gfx. and things become tricky here, because you cannot compare the results especially in the idea of creativity - or even with fully pixelled works.
consequences for c64pixels:
all pictures that have been proved matching full screen convert are tagged as T/ 1:1 Convert and are visible for members only.
same pics got a remark in bold red letters that the pics are specified as convert.
exception are the current compo entries - they stay public till the voting is over.
for future compos id say:
all references, originals and the last pre-convert workstage must be provided with compo-entries. all of them will be shown as summary on csdb right from the start.
animated wire-proofs like mermaid showed up do the best job (btw cheers to vanja and jcb).
workstages are overrated imo. keep in mind that starting with outlines is common sense and linear operations can be easily simulated. it is not all about popping objects.
---
reminder: the compo voting is still open. please send your favorite 3 gfx by pm to enthusi or me. thanks in advance :) |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
It doesn't feel good to see some people play down on the importance of the subject. Real pixel artists DO care.
The following text is from the Pixelation forums, an active pixel art community with a lot of talented people, like Helm and Ptoing. Which shows how this subject is being dealt with by people who're serious about pixel art.
Quoting pixelation forums rulesRule 2: Do not rip artwork. Ever!
Always clearly state what your references were in making a piece. If you sketched in pencil, color-reduced to 1bit and then went to work on it, okay. Ways like this are completely accepted and nobody's going to shout at your for it, but it's good to know anyway. If you stole somebody else's artwork, 1bitted it and then submitted it for critique, not okay. If caught red-handed, by moderators or users, and the case is clear you ripped, you will be banned and forgotten forever. Other similar instances of fraudulent behaviour like posting other people's artwork without permission (regardless of them being edited or not) or jobs without delivering the promised payment will reap similar rewards.
Rule 3: Post only pixel art.
Now this is a bit of a controversial subject, but it hopefully can be cleared out at least so we can go on with our business here: Pixel Art, is art where there's specific attention paid to the fine manipulation of picture elements. It deals with the informative quality of specific, single pixels. If the art you're about to post has not been pixel-pushed on that level, don't bother. Automatic AA, soft brushes, filters, smudge tools, all are indicative of index-painting, or at least dirty-tooling, but do not always mean your art will not benefit from pixel-level critique. If you've made something using some of these tools and then you're able to reign the piece in by optimizing the palette into using the best possible amount of colors, went in and pushed single pixels until everything is right, then it's probable we'll be able to talk about your art and how it can be made better. Always be clear of how you made things, only post concept art when it's relative to a pixel-art piece you've made and never never try to decieve us. As above, workstages and process animations are optional, but always welcome.
One could argue these 'pixelation forum' guys are way to anal about things, but i feel they're completely on spot. (as for comparison: The CSDb crack standards).
Quoting DiggerNow, the trick is how do you squeeze thousands (if not million) colours palette into 11 colours (hires/multi char mode) and still preserve the high quality of the original image.(...)
This reasoning is beyond me... This makes it sound the compo was about doing the most optimized conversions.
Quoting Celticand lastly: besides 4 or 5 extremely gifted pixellers like mermaid and i think STE , I think loads of people use this method. I am wondering who would like to claim or state that they never do this r have done it.
Quoting DiggerI (sadly) think the golden era of hand pixelled gfx is gone forever due to at least two reasons:
1. Life is faster people are spending too much time playing with useless apps on their mobiles hoping to make their life actions more efficient (= waste of time and illusion IMHO but that's another topic) ;-)
2. Effort/reward ratio no way you can hand pixel 2 screen pic in 12-14 hrs, even with limited palette and sophisticated pixelling tools (brushes, dither box, etc) and it took me similar time to code the editor (http://c64.blog2t.net/slixed). I mean it's A LOT of time in REAL LIFE (yes, we're no longer in our teens).
3. There are great conversion tools (i.e. Timathes), which we haven't had in late '80s/early '90s you HAD to pixel by hand (or use "analogue" conversion methods)
I'll give you the only reason - it's this attitude. And that attitude has become too common in the scene.
I feel such an attitude is disrespectful to pixel artists like Mermaid, Archmage, Saehn and quite a few others. Realizing these people could be participating in the same competition, and doing original artwork.
I'm very pleased to see this discussion rise again, and for the first time - things seems to change a little.
(Please note, this is not about the double screen competition in particular. Props to Veto And Enthusi for taking action regarding this discussion.) |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: I'd like to add that yes, i did a copy, but before enterring i explained to veto how i did the pic, and asked if it was appropriate. Also my pic is tagged on c64pixels with the original artist and production company so it can easily be found.
Yes, i copy, and therefor a pic by f.e. Grass is way more impressive then mine.
I would like to state that most 98% of the pics i do are wirejobs/converts etc.etc. I still spend hours and hours on them refining, adding pixels, removing pixels, etc. but i wanted it out there so i dont get accused for anything in the future.
and lastly: besides 4 or 5 extremely gifted pixellers like mermaid and i think STE , I think loads of people use this method. I am wondering who would like to claim or state that they never do this r have done it.
If only 4-5 people are actually pixelling whilst everyone else is just wiring and fixing, I would feel very disillusioned with this scene.
I'd like to state that it's certainly not a technique that I use regularly. This was a pic for a magazine outfit and is clearly a copy, but I hope the following will show it was definitely pixelled by hand (even if it makes my pixelling look a bit inaccurate!)
Not having a go at you personally, I respect you've been quite open about your methods. As Mermaid said, don't give up on compos, just try to do things the other way! Plenty of people would be happy to give you some tips I'm sure. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
What Sander said. A very important post. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
Quote:I'll give you the only reason - it's this attitude. And that attitude has become too common in the scene.
double plus plus plus.
its exactly that attitude that lead to establishing the mentioned release standards, indeed. and i would more than welcome if similar standards could be established for other stuff (although i can see how there its somewhat harder to do). |
| |
Alias Medron
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 39 |
I ve read the above comments and oppinions..
so here are my 2 cents..
Putting a copy in a compo is fine with me as long as you copy it by hand
(remember all those Boris Valejo pics in compos in the late 80's and 90's?)
BUT, just converting a nice picture and repixeling it isn't enough (for me anyway)
to enter a compo. Even worse if you don't mention your source and don't give credit to
the original artist.
I made a couple of copies that way too but never for a compo and one will see from
a mile away that it's not pure handpixeling if he takes a look at my other pics..
I mean.. 100% perfect match is almost impossible without wiring (ok.. except if your
name is STE or Joe).
Some time ago i criticised Joe for his almost perfect pictures and called them wired
until i found out that he's not from this planet and analyses things (shapes, forms,
light etc)in a different way than most people do. And even if they were partly converted
the source was original (his own photos, sketches etc) and that's a completely
different thing. I bet though he never just "repixeled" a wired image, at least not a compo
entry..
To summ it up..
Is wiring and converting ok?
Yes if you mention the source and the process and the compo allows non original and
non handpixeled pictures.
Will i vote for a converted picture?
maybe.. but if there is another not so great pic in the compo that is pure handpixeling
i will give it a better vote just for the effort.
and now i'll go back in my cave.. |
| |
FATFrost
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 211 |
There was once a saying ' the best artists, are the best thieves'
Competitions are meant to be a test of skills, to prove the sceners power...
Converting a pic to show your skills and win a compo is like tracing a picture when you were a kid and telling everyone you drew it.
Sometimes you get found out, sometimes you get away with it.
But you have to keep living the lie, and one day you will be tested to reproduce the same due to your previous efforts, can you produce the goods then?
The secret is in the small details...... you are as strong as your weakest point and in some pictures the smallest pixel skills shows the secret of the true artist.
but whatever.... the governments are still corrupt and so is this 'SCENE'....
/FF |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
http://www.google.no/search?q=andy+warhole&hl=no&client=opera&h..
One of my fav artist in all times... he used wires to the max! I never felt less of him because of that... I just admire him huge... But there is a difference... he did what he copied into something greater than the originals in a way... Not just a lame convert to a really bad graphics card on a pc from 1982... he were smart, using less to be greater or at least different... |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
100% perfect placement of elements is available to all c64 artists using any app with layer support.
using the "rotoscoping" technique and either a "draw over" or "draw under" method.
in the draw over method you simply, as the name suggests, size your source image and place where required on one layer and the overdraw that image on a layer above to create the required element.
the draw under method is slightly harder to get used to where u trace the element to a layer below the source image which you cant see. harder to master at first but it does have the advantage that you aren't obliterating the image you are reproducing as you work.
in zoom mode VERY accurate pixel placement can be obtained.
It has to be said that this method does not do all the work for you, but it does take out alot of the donkey work and free up the artists time to concentrate on shading and form, rather than trying to figure out "what the bloody hell is wrong with that eye"
rotoscoping used by the animation industry as a vaild tool can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping
and another variation used by artists called epidiascoping can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidiascope
doing this stuff "back in the day" purely by eye was much harder work i assure you. but i can also assure you that had we had this ability we would have damned well used it.
I see rotoscoping as a modern variation on the old "grid tracing" technique just a hell of a lot faster.
I know many of the pixel purists are horrified by such words of "heresy" but in my experience, those who act like that have never done their art "for real" against a real life deadline. to me and i would guess most of the "old guys", anything goes except machine/application conversion and "digital" reproduction.
Steve
edit: one more thing, suspect any artist who says they don't use techniques like this and whose images match their sources at more than 80%. they are lying to you :) |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
example... If one can just alter the contrast to get a good shape I would do that instead of sitting and handpainting the shape... today, 2011 I will do that much faster... and then work from what I lay out in photoshop and get a nice base to be creative on... I will not go back to squared paper and a lighttable and then putting it in by hand on the c64... that is just too lame... but as I said in my earlier post... a stright convert is lame, a worked art inspired by another one is for me ok... not all are mermaids with their own style and their own arsenal of characters and so on... not all do work that way.
In film it is always done from some ref images of film... you film something and then work from that in order to do it greater...
BUT... the lame one to one convert with thimantes or so is just boring to me...
STE... yes you are all right my man... |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
@PAL,STE: Agree with you that one should use all available tools etc. but you're missing one crucial point about this thread and that is if one should be allowed to submit such picture to a compo or not. |
| |
Alias Medron
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 39 |
I'm with Jackasser here..
I don't care if a picture in a demo is retraced/repixeled converted etc as long as it looks good.
Ofcourse the handpixeled one has an extra WOW factor but in a demo whan we talk about still images it just has to look good in my opinion.
The gfx competitions are a completely different thing though..
and by the way.. i guess we're in a loop here.. this conversation goes on for years in the scene and comes up again and again. And in the end it's not about converting or not.. it's about honesty. It's about giving credit to original artists.. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quote:you're missing one crucial point about this thread and that is if one should be allowed to submit such picture to a compo or not.
This. While I *always* care if a picture is traced/copied/a retouched scan/original/whatever, the point of this whole thing as I stated several times is not about making copies in general, this is about entering them in a competition.
Quote:Yes, by all means go ahead and copy (and I mean *copy*, not retouch scans) great artists, that is a great way to get better at drawing and learning about anatomy and such. I have no problem with that, it'd be nice to see the original pics though. But is it really necessary to submit those (practice) copies to a competition and possibly beat people who came up with their own motives from scratch? Why not come up with something yourself? |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quote:in my experience, those who act like that have never done their art "for real" against a real life deadline. to me and i would guess most of the "old guys", anything goes except machine/application conversion and "digital" reproduction.
This "old girl" has done "art" for a living too, you know, "for real", without tracing or rotoscoping, against very real deadlines. And I'm hardly the only one. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
MANY compo winners have been copies over the years haven't they?
some subjects were known, some slipped under the radar.
this:
http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=4650&show=review
I have no doubt is actress Theresa Russell.
Copy? yes, because its unlikely that that artist got Theresa Russell to sit for him :) probably from a publicity shot.
Hand drawn? definitely.
Valid art? why not? He's drawn it and it's obviously technically acceptable because i can see it's Ms. Russell.
Now lets take another Russell:
recognised in the artworld as classic film poster art. original copies of this regularly change hands at auction for several thousands of pounds...
yet...
is one of the many publicity shots from the film.
see what i am getting at here?
kneejerk reactions to "no copies" simply do not recognise the fact that actually transferring a recognisable image from another medium to the c64 BY HAND in 16 fixed colours at 160x200 in 4 colours per 8x8 is an artform in itself and indeed one that the original artist MIGHT NOT be able to accomplish himself/herself.
Steve |
| |
Wile Coyote
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 646 |
Original pixel work is great.
Pictures based on existing pictures can also be great, and not so great.
By saying great and not so great, results in 4 categories:
The not so great wired image:
Ill leave you to decide what you consider to be an ugly wired image.
The great wired image:
Leguan / Hi-Lite - an impressive wired image.
The not so great pixeled image - based on existing image:
Ill leave you to decided on what example fits here ;)
The great pixeled image - based on existing image:
Li2 / Deekay - a great pixeled image based on an existing image.
-
Then theres the images that are wired, then worked on by hand, producing various results. These are the images that produced mixed results when entered into compos. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
Quote:Ill leave you to decide what you consider to be an ugly wired image.
Fantastica. original by you know who, palette saturation prepared in PSP, converted using IFF-Converter, pixelbugs fix0red by myself. done during the party and released for shits'n'giggles using a rather obvious fake handle.
i pity those who voted for it basically =)
STE: most (if not all) pictures by AEG are indeed copies, handpixelled using the good old grid transfer method. for originals check the german "was ist was?" books, they were a major source of "inspiration" for him :=)
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
STE: Amazingly, you are still missing the point. This is not about film posters. This is not about how loader screens were made in the 1980s. This is not about copying Vallejo for your own benefit to improve your draw-naked-women-with-dragons skills. This is not about reliving your youth by drawing pretty copies from 2000AD and posting them on CSDb. This is not about copying or wiring pretty pictures and putting them in a demo so people can go ooh aah look how pretty.
This is about taking a picture and copying it 1:1 (or colouring a scan) and then entering that copy in a graphics competition.
No matter how you twist and turn it, the fact is that copying something is not the same as coming up with something original. It does not even come close. Different leagues. If people are so keen on copies then by all means arrange a copy competition (like c64.sk had cover competitions) and keep the copies out of the graphics competitions. Submitting a 1:1 copy in a graphics competition in 2011 is lame.
And STE and others, for the love of Torquemada, stop using what happened in the past as some sort of eternal excuse for whatever goes on in the present. These are different times and it is never too late to start doing something original. |
| |
Malmix
Registered: Jul 2004
Posts: 11 |
To me a C64 graphics competition is about pictures pixeled by hand because that's how it's done on the C64. There is no C64 Photoshop. All you've got is 16 colors and your own eyes to decide what pixels should be set to what color to get the best result. If the result is your own original work that's awesome but most people (including myslef) may rather stick to redrawing to avoid lame results.
Now about the C64 gfx == hand pixeled part obviously not everybody agrees. Some people may think that unless the rules state otherwise it's totally okay to convert. So what about...
1. State that converted gfx are not allowed. Most people who are into machinary converting will accept this but to minimize cheating demand workstages.
2. State that converted gfx are allowed. Some pixel artist will still participate while some won't bother.
In the end it's about what the compo is about. :) |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
"redrawing to avoid lame results" - yeah, there's the problem I guess.
Fear.
Fear of placing low in the competition if you enter something you came up with yourself.
Fear of people mocking your skills if everything isn't anatomically correct.
Fear of dropping in the charts if you start doing your own work instead of relying on someone else's original.
Fear of people questioning the work you did in the past if suddenly your pictures aren't as amazing as they used to be when you were copying. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
fear brought us fire! ;-)
But I agree: placing pixels so something is shown on a real c64 in the end and creating pixels are two very different things.
The PC or not PC discussion is something completely else. You can very well create pixels using modern PC tools ;-)
And at this point I completely agree with Mermaid again.
Future compos may ask for graphics which contain own, new, created content. But graphics on c64 never were only about placing pixels AND being an artist. And they dont have to be in 2011. The Gollum pic of x2010 i.e. showed: "Hell, I can place pixels and I own c64 restictions" but it did not say "Look, I am an creative Artist" like i.e. Ptoing's entry.
Both are valid.
Pictures that reflect "look, I can use a converter", however, should not be submitted to compos. Yet, it is the full responsibility of the scener what to do and what not to do. We are all grown ups and should be able to judge properly. Furthermore we should not care too much about 'uneducated' people judging without caring about the background information. Hell, we have demos here with 5 downloads and 10 votes ;-) |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
my point once again, was that recognised "classic" artwork done from a photograph would be classed as COPY by your PERSONAL standards, and it is you that are being blinkered by you own refusal to accept any other viewpoint.
This is not about loading screens or the past, this is about your personal preference and your crusade against any artwork that doesnt fit your personal preference really isn't it?
"Cargo" for example is done from a video still.
It is obviously redrawn, certainly no convert so is this less valid than Jane Russell's publicity still being turned into a piece of recognised classic artwork?
Ditto for Fraulein Kinski , The Hero Is Back , AT's Star Trek or Girl
all portraits, all done from photographs therefore "copies" as are 1000s of portraits all classed as "art" every year entered into galleries and competitions.
I applaud your adherance to producing original stuff, but it's a big world out there and not everyone appreciates the same "art".
Steve |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
@Mermaid: Lots of fear... That was entertaining ;-)
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Dear STE,
I hope one day you overcome your fears and try riding a bike without support wheels.
Love,
Mermaid |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Dear Vanja,
this isnt about me or what I like to produce. I don't enter competitions, I never have, so it makes no difference to me what the rules are.
I am defending other people's right to draw what they want and enter it freely. As long as they DO draw it.
snide remarks just show what an attitude problem you seem to have with anyone whose opinion does not mirror you own which is basically what this witchhunt you have started is all about.
instead of talking about other people's "fears" why can't you adopt the attitude that "my stuff is better than copies" and rely on the voters integrity to decide whose deserves the win?
Steve
EDIT: but i do agree that sources if used must be quoted so Joe Public actually know. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
STE, sorry but you are the one who is making this personal by reducing this debate to "Mermaid's crusade against those poor artists", and now even a "witchhunt".
Several times in this discussion I have pointed out that I do not mind people copying (and that it is a great way of learning about anatomy and whatnot) as long as they show the source material. What I have a problem with is people submitting 1:1 copies and coloured scans in graphics competitions. Do I need to spell it out to you one more time? |
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
I don't have any problems with people copying other people's art, I have a problem with people being dishonest. It's fine if you're not good enough to draw your own motifs, but then you should make it clear the work isn't yours originally. I'd be pissed off if I found out someone had copied something I did and didn't give me credit for the work behind it. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
yes i'm afraid you do, because while i can understand the machine converted/scan exception cannot see WHY you have a problem with hand drawn 1:1 copies being entered as long as its tagged as such or is with sources.
personally as i have said before, i can see no real difference between this and rotoscoping.
basically give the voter the information and let them decide.
Steve |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Because if you want to show off your über copying skills then there ought to be a separate competition for that, just like there have been separate music competitions over at c64.sk for cover tunes.
The motif is a pretty damn major part in what makes a picture, and when that motif is someone else's work, I don't find it right to enter it in a regular graphics competition, regardless if it is wired, traced, overpainted, underpainted, or copied the "hard" way. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
but then that just comes down your opinion that you are repeatedly trying to foist on everyone else again doesn't it?
and says more about your insecurities than other folks really.
Steve |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
Gotta love the scene... LOL |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
STE: Oh really? Are you of the opinion that the motif does not matter at all when judging a picture's qualities then?
And furthermore, If I was insecure about any of this, I strongly suspect I would be staying far away from this discussion. |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
This was a rather modest discussion with lots of content untill some people thought it was wise to come up with all sorts of details, comparisons and personal issues... :-(
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Not at all, I personally despise wires and "pseudo wires" that you know really are but the artist won't admit it.
and i do SO love to see these "outed"
I do however think that anything thats been done by hand in any method is "fair game" for a competition as long as all is declared and workstages provided if required.
and its not up the competing artists or potential competing artists to decide what is "art"
as i have said, provide all information, let the voters decide what they like...
and ban any lying bugger who is found out later from future events :) along with removing their entry wins from csdb.
Steve |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Well, I disagree with you there (surprise surprise!), a major part of a picture is the motif and entering a graphics competition (unless it is a competition designed to find out who is the best copyer) with a copy of someone else's motif is lame. That is my opinion, and discussions would be rather boring without opinions, so there.
Also, I'm not sure I've used the word art anywhere earlier in this discussion, except maybe once with a " on each end, if I have that was an oversight. I'm generally reluctant to use that word and consider myself an illustrator, not an artist. Put it down to my insecurities if you will. |
| |
irwin
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 6 |
I agree with Mermais in 120%.
Why?
This is a Double Screen Compo thread so let us consider this example. When Veto publish all works after first couple hours votes looks like:
First place Monroe 6569 by Digger 9.3 average votes and two digit "ten vote" - votes
Last place takes Asteroidmine by Grass with avg about 6
After Mermaid and JCB found orginal images and become clear so many pictures from this compo is only a convert or retouch convert votes "magically" turns upside down.
Now Monroe 6569 even after additional votes has only a one digit "ten vote" votes. And only 7.8
Why? - because some sceners cares.
New voters had in mind examples - gif-transitions from Mermaid, those who voted earlier - changes their votes, downvote.
Why? - because they cares. They appreciate the work of man, not computer programs.
As i see sceners are sometimes afraid to judge or highly vote realistic picture because they suspect that it might be a conversion. It hits at those graphicans who can draw.
So my suggestion (such as deviantart) create new category: photomanipluation graphicans for those designers who use the techniques of conversion, coping, retouch or raytracing.
Without this, without Mermaid and JCB work in this compo, results would be different. In that situation for sure Grass would take last place. Now when users know about conversions - Grass move up.Because when we throwing everything (converted, retouch google images, raytraced models) - and normal pixelart work into one is like compete in the marathon, but instead run from the beginning - join up to 2 miles before the finish line. Unfair.
I bet if Grass - instead painting - convert/retouch some google images - and no Mermaid and JCB actions - he takes much higher place.
Is this what we want? Conversions?
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
actually Irwin, it was neither Mermaid nor JCB who started the ball rolling with "Raven".
why don't you ask them who found it in the first place?
I just don't like to jump the gun and "out" people before they have time to admit it. and i don't like "witchhunts".
Steve |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quoting Saint STE'86Priceless!
Quoting Saint STE'86i do SO love to see these "outed"
Quoting Saint STE'86Mermaid is a big fat meanie!
Ok, I might have made that last one up.
I did actually credit JCB for detective work when I posted the originals for each entry, as he's the guy I got them from.
Yours truly,
Mermaid Hopkins (Witchfinder General) |
| |
irwin
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 6 |
@STE86
Doesn't matter who starts, who founds - could be even a Ghandi or Pope or Martians - important is why and what, read my post. |
| |
lemming
Registered: Oct 2009
Posts: 44 |
"Repaints" have generally not been allowed in compos on parties since the mid-nineties at least.
This does not mean those can't be cool. He/she who hasn't "repainted" anything for the past 6 months should 'throw the first stone' :) (thinking of a certain Yuri Gagarin pic which imho might be the coolest pic this year so far...O:-)
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
@Irwin yes and read MY post.
I was the one who initially found the raven source image and I would have posted it as soon as Dane had posted his first post on the thread and not acknowledged it.
but Veto had only just finished uploading the entries when Mermaid posted that pic.
quote me:
"I just don't like to jump the gun and "out" people before they have time to admit it. and i don't like "witchhunts"."
Steve
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
"but Veto had only just finished uploading the entries when Mermaid posted that pic."
STE, all those entries were added to CSDb long before I posted the originals, there was plenty of time for the organisers or the authors to add the originals to production notes, so stop trying to make me look like a monster, please. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
I am not trying to paint you as a monster.
Veto was online updating those entries. i was watching him on the users list at the time. I don't think he was even aware that was a convert...
BUT Dane had NOT posted any comment on there and until he did i didnt intend to "out" him because he may not have even seen it.
"benefit of the doubt" and all that
Twoflower tho was fair game because he had posted.
Steve
|
| |
Skate
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 494 |
There is nothing wrong about wiring unless you are ok to handle these kind of topics. If you can't handle, pixel your own shit. It's that simple to me. |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
"but Veto had only just finished uploading the entries when Mermaid posted that pic."
Actually those entries were added here 10-12 hours before I even saw the original pics via Pete.
As a famous graphics guy once said to me: "nicely timed after all the votes are in on it i would say. shouldnt refs be posted AT THE TIME of uploading?" |
| |
Shadow
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 355 |
Sorry to go a bit offtopic here, but I must say that I'm a bit curious on how do people actually spot the references that was used when the artist didn't provide a link?
You'd have to have seen an amazing amount of artworks/photos, as well as remember them to be able to come up with "OH WAIT! Haven't I seen this before?"
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Shadow: http://www.tineye.com/ |
| |
Shadow
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 355 |
Mermaid: Wow, that was actually pretty cool!
It found the "Monroe" reference (but not "Looking outward") when I did a quick test-run. Impressive what can be done with image-analysis today. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
to catch "raven" i cut the uploaded image to just the face (because i assumed at the time it was 3 images merged)
then did a left and a right flipped version and ran it thru Tineye.
the uploaded direction had no hits but the flipped version hit on the face of the model immediately.
it's amazing what u can catch by isolating just the face facing left and right :)
Steve
EDIT Looking Outward was picked up the fact that it was tagged as Engine House 13 on c64pixels. google image that and you will find it as you scroll down. |
| |
Carrion
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 317 |
this is demoscene.
people were and will pixel (meaning copy, still, wire, etc) the way they like to.
demoscene is about having fun. if one has fun repainting then go for it. i'm thankfull to mermaid that she posted the originals in this thread but for me it was rather a interesting fact of submited pics that they were copied rather than "evidence of crime".
|
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Carrion, once again, no one is saying "don't ever copy". Some of us are saying "please don't submit copies to graphics compos" and "if you copy please show the original picture as well". |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
or even...
"nicely timed, after all the votes are in on it i would say. shouldnt refs be posted AT THE TIME of uploading?" :P
Steve
(a private joke between me & mermaid that one) :) |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Ooh, cheeky! |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
"- Racist motives are not tolerated.
Yes, explicit nudity, violence or weird disturbing stuff will be accepted
but only visible for members and not represented on Lemon64 or CSDb."
this is the chapter that would have been changed if i was aware of the things happening. "wired content" is missing to be restricted to members.
the idea of the compo came up while watching those awesome multiscreeners in demos like andropolis or we are new, but also a small fun production that competed in the x2010-gfx-compo: leming's "elephant nipples". 100% wired, obviously no compo winner, but a really nice example to show a small episode with 2 screens.
and this is what the compo was supposed to be: feel free to play with the idea. show us variety. creativity is more important than perfect pixels (btw also somekind of philosophy behind c64p). did you mention that soft-scrolling was recommended and no must? even before-after-pics would have been accepted...
anyway experiments did not really happen. i read about some interesting ideas previosly. like connecting 2 c64 by using rrnet, petscii-designs, diagonal scrollers, ... the focus was on full-screen-gfx at last - which is nice for sure - but thanks to the missing rule about wires caused all this mess. and i am glad that mermaid and jcb submitted the originals and this discussion happens (though i did not sleep well because of this last week, believe me).
again: i did not upload the original pics, because this did not even came up to my mind. tell me if i am wrong, but on major compos it is not exactly common to show them or even asking for them (and please - workstages are no trustworthy source). original artists and references are required tags for c64pixels, still this was no real connection to the compo.
to sum things up:
there will be never any c64pixels compo anymore without public wire-checks.
if wires are accepted, they will be marked and members only.
i do not believe that this way to control validity is practical for parties.
the idea of an originals only compo sounds sexy. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Obviously the final voting scores will be totally skewed, but we're used to that. Might as well forget about voting next time and just show it to the public.
Hope more charmode will be used next time, preferably only 1 charset and no rastersplits. |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
Just a thought, this is far out maybe but worth the post in my mind:
In the past there were so much great stuff both visual and audio, and coding... A lot of the things that made the c64 great for me I have later learned that were stolen, ripped, altered, violated and raped, taken a step further, came together from different sources, were original, were just cool but again based on ideas or art from others and so on...
Is this not the scene we love? For me it is in a way... I think a lot of making the scene more professional and everything must be sorted out and be super documented and strict will in the end lead to the very death of the scene we love. If it must all be so damn tight why should one create and invest so much time on the c64? Then I would more do a professional work that I get paied to do maybe... I see this is also happening in the pc scene and so on... everything is getting so close to professional work that it in the end is another job we have and not a fun all is allowed hobby that is just for the fun of doing something on the old breadbin, let us all face the facts, it is outdated, it is weird and it is really strange to be doing and again investing so much time on this machine...
LET US JUST HAVE FUN!!!! Let us embrace what we, different members of a dying breeth love and let us just rest with that... then it is fun, it is like just doing something for you, and them and all we know... It is getting tiersome this arguments in a way...
The scene is about doing something and getting away with it also, maybe in a greater way than we all think... I urge all to think ofthis as something fun, no matter what... it is silly to make this into something more professional and it will, trust me on this, just be the start of the end!
No one loves 1 to 1 convertions anyway so what is the problem? Hubbard is great because he stole, and used what he stole in a great way... this also apply for code and graphics and ideas in my mind!
The biggest problem for the artists in the double screen compo is that they were busted in a great and hard way... If they were not some would love them more... like hubbard in the past... still hubbard holds something special because he really did something more with what he stole and created his own thing, and he were blessed to be on another medium than the mainstream too... like we all are even today! Hubbard ofcourse did original his own too... but the most loved ones are mostly inspired by others in a way... hmmm... here I go... the lamer I am talking about great artists like Hubbard... well it just have to be that way. Hubbard got busted years later from more people, back then things went slower and communication were different... that is it, today we can test all things all the time on the touch of a fingertip... he got busted, but were a hero before that and we all loved his work more than the originals he stole from because we as strange humans just love the boundries of the c64 and its sound and look and all.
We are the bluebox and cracker generation... what is that? it were based on stealing god damn it! We started this motherfucker of a thing called the scene... It were the very start of the scene right there... STEALING!
What is really the difference in stealing a tune and making a c64 version of that tune and the stealing of a picture and doing a version for the c64? What is the fundamental difference? Linus did ashes to ashes in the crest slide show demo, I love that version, It is super... but it is bowies track... why is linus great for doing that when pixel artists are lame doing stuff from inspiration?
1 to 1 converts in software we all agree is lame, but what if some artist used 30-50 hours doing it perfect? is that lame? I think it is great!
Go on, create something that is fun or interesting or something, just do it!
PS: mermaid... You have something really special and I love you for that, you are uniqe and really totally out of this world... we all love you for that! STE I love you too, you have standards and are different than mermaid and a lot others... I love people doing great things on this weird machine and I do love it to differ in all ways... love it...
PSS: I think my last ninja in another beginning is really really awesome and a perfect starter for us when returning, history, feelings and mood... I used minimum 50 hours on that... am I lame for doing so? I wanted to give you a all best superiour last ninja face on the c64 because I really think you wanted to see it much greater than the original, the original in our minds beeing an epic c64 image, here the original by the way: http://www.lemon64.com/games/screenshots/full/l/last_ninja_01.g.. ... and here is my version: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/gfx/releases/94000/94448.png - I just wanted to create something that I would want to see and I thought everyone else would think is really cool... So I did a (my c64) version of the last ninja, the BEST VERSION EVER in my mind by a million and I really think that is something due to history and the fact that the last ninja were something really great in my life... maybe I have not seen other ninja retakes that are as great but I think my version is the peak of last ninja images and I am really proud of that, not feeling lame about that one at all... standing tall, above normal, abnormal that is... so proud of that one! For me that is a epic image done in plain koala format with its double pixels and all... it is the c64 for me... but I stole the inspiration... I admit that... but guess you already figured that out?
PSSS: the entries in the double screen compo do lack the personal touch and some really are booring stright converts... so I really do understand the thing here... sorry for long post!
Your PAL |
| |
Mermaid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 338 |
Quoting PALI more or less agree with everyone who has ever posted in this thread, really!
Yep, yep.
To repeat myself for the 2751928365th time, if people want to copy instead of making something of their own, fine, but entering the copies in a competition, not so fine.
Quoting STE'86In your opinion
In my opinion. |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Could we sum it up to this:
Pixel art competitions
- No wiring of another artist's work.
- If doing a copy, be very explicit about it and provide the reference.
- Encourage and reward originality.
Outside competitions
- Be honest about your workflow.
(And tbh, I'd love to see pixel art compos exclude copies too.) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Agreed, if you participate too :)
Honestly, I don't mind people copying a picture and enter it in a gfx compo. If they win, unfair, lovely unfair like life. But it's the 'artist' who's copying, not the jury. I'd laugh my head of if Celtic wins. The way he cheated the audience, isn't that worth a prize? |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
excuse me? cheated the audience? |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Not? My bad. :) |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
Well, before enterring i asked veto's permission and told him about how i made it. Also i have provided the original pic to mermaid so she could make the 1x1 animation to show Dane wasn't the only one doing this. Also on c64pixels both original artist and prodeuction company was mentioned.
I was not the one posting the original pic, because i was away the weekend the pics were uploaded.
I never lied or cheated anyone, and quite take offence when people say i did.
your bad indeed :) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
It's up to you to do the things you like, don't get me wrong. Still, I feel kinda cheated (and yes, also by Dane and not sure how Digger did his picture).
The motivation for wiring might be to win, to waste some time or maybe to investigate graphics closely. |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quote: It's up to you to do the things you like, don't get me wrong. Still, I feel kinda cheated (and yes, also by Dane and not sure how Digger did his picture).
The motivation for wiring might be to win, to waste some time or maybe to investigate graphics closely.
I gotto agree on this sentiment. That's exactly how i feel about it too.
Admtted - it was allowed by the compo rules, however from an 'artist' point of view it's VERY derative, and thus feels like cheating. Eventhough it was not. |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
for me it was not about competing or winning, but about creating a nice 2 screener and have fun while doing it. And supporting the awesome compo idea with some gfx.
i respect all opinions, but like i said, i dont like to be called something i am not. But i understand that in a way it may feel that way.
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
In fairness to Celtic as has been stated a few times on here already, his pic was tagged as "Engine House 13" from day 1 on c64pixels.
if you google that, then his pic comes up along with many other 2 screen candidates.
I have to say tho, when i first saw the pic, i thought it was derived from a cartoon frame of "Treebeard" the Ent from LOTR.
and i still think it's possible the original's inspiration was from there :)
Steve
|
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quoting STEIn fairness to Celtic as has been stated a few times on here already, his pic was tagged as "Engine House 13" from day 1 on c64pixels.
Yes, and none argues about that. |
| |
Isildur
Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 275 |
@PAL, 100% agree with you.
What this discussion is about? A new definition of digital art?
Not all of us know how to paint or sketch, but know how to make good looking pix on C64.
Come on, make some hand drawn, converted, photoshop manipulated pix or whhatever you want, BUT MAKE IT GOOD AND UNIQUE.
|
| |
Valsary
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 11 |
Boring ;) War against copying is like tilting at windmills, just don't take it too serious and everything will be fine. IMHO there is no c64 demo-scene without copies/collages by Mirage as same as without cartoons by Marmaid...i love both :) Providing the reference pictures/art is just fair to the others, as simple as that. |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quote:What this discussion is about?
About entering wired or copies in pixel art competitions.
Why does everyone forget after a few posts? |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
it is also slightly about "Double Screen Compo Voting",
so don't forget to vote ;-)
|
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Quote: Quoting STEIn fairness to Celtic as has been stated a few times on here already, his pic was tagged as "Engine House 13" from day 1 on c64pixels.
Yes, and none argues about that.
Is that right?
also quote:
"The way he cheated the audience, isn't that worth a prize?"
my point is Celtic cheated nobody who actually read the info provided.
Steve
|
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quoting STE'86Is that right?
also quote:
"The way he cheated the audience, isn't that worth a prize?"
my point is Celtic cheated nobody who actually read the info provided.
Steve
If you scroll down a bit then:
Quoting HeinNot? My bad. :) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Quote: Is that right?
also quote:
"The way he cheated the audience, isn't that worth a prize?"
my point is Celtic cheated nobody who actually read the info provided.
Steve
Wiring/converting/colouring feels like cheating to me, despite the rules. But, I also said it's his free choice to do so, if he has troubles with me expressing my feelings about that choice, bad luck. ;)
Hopefully next time not a wire-job, but a copy. :) |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
Let's just get back to the discussion without involving me :). STE thanks for comming to my defense, but in the end i think both hein and Sander are saying that eventhough i did not cheat and was honest about it all, it still feels a bit like cheating.
I dont agree, but i can understand their feelings about it.
And like sander said, Hein's 'my bad' is good enough for me:) |
| |
Skate
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 494 |
Quote: Shadow: http://www.tineye.com/
offtopic. tineye is for completing your favorite porn image series. please don't use it for other ugly things like that. |
| |
Dane
Account closed
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 421 |
Jazzcat recently emailed me and asked for a comment on this compo and the debate for the next issue of VN. This is my comment on the Raven.
Vermeer, Van Eyck, Caravaggio - all great artists who used scientific methods to achieve more realism in their art, at least if you believe the Hockney-Falco thesis. But what does Renaissance art have to do with C64 graphics? Well, whether you use an optical device, a camera obscura, a grid method, rotoscope or Paint Shop Pro - it's means to an end.
I've always been a sucker for realism (and faces, but that's beside the point). For me C64 graphics has always been about making stuff look cool and to achieve as much realism as possible. During the years I've tried various methods (most of which are probably explained in depth by others in this text) to get a good result. Definitely more handicraft than artistry, I agree, but countless hours in front of the screen either way.
When the double screen compo was announced I was attracted by the challenge to make a larger or wider image than usual, and also by the format restraints. This goes back to pixeling the abstract graphics for Andropolis (don't tell anyone but there's some original artwork), when I had a lot of fun with the limitations of the Koala format, and really liked the way one of my shading techniques turned out. So I wanted to reproduce that somehow on the Karen Ellis image.
One of my main heroes is Mirage, and I really admire the way he works with original sources and always improves them somehow. The best way, I've found, to get decent proportions and an idea about shading is to have a rough wired image to work from. Some people prefer using layer methods - I have more fun repixeling. Basically I ran the cropped mirrored image through a crappy PSP-converter and then repixeled the girl in the interlace-looking line style. The idea for my image was to add a few more birds (since the background is so dull) and I had an idea for her to cry blood (which would not be interlaced red/gray). But that's the thing about deadlines, I ran out of time.
My one and only regret is not finishing the image the way I wanted to before I sent it to the organizer (and the deadline was extended, doh). Obviously some people are very upset that I have used an original source and entered a competition for graphicians. If this had been stated in the rules I wouldn't have participated (and probably wouldn't have bothered about making a double screen image).
Anyway, thanks to c64pixels.com for dragging me out of a scene coma. Everyone who participated did a great job, especially Digger, who was my personal favourite this time. Also, thanks to JCB and Mermaid for quickly posting the original sources. I wonder though, what would have happened if I had photographed a friend instead and used that as the reference? Original art or 1:1 conversion? Don't worry, I don't plan to enter any more competitions ever again I think.
Finally, I'm no Vermeer, Van Eyck or Caravaggio and I never will be. But I enjoy all of their paintings no matter how they were produced. |
| |
Jazzcat
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1044 |
Dane: oh, I was hoping to use than in Vandalism. :D
Dudes, anyone wishes to have a comment in the mag, let me know in PM.
I will run a chapter to try cover different angles and air out the subject to try cover all points of view. Ultimately, people make their own minds up.
|
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
Dane... I think your framing of the picture is good... fits the c64 good... but man I see software generated patterns in all of the background, in the hair and in all and so on... I just think it would be fair to say it were a convert... maybe you did say so I do not know... but again... I think the enteries were all in all just ok... I do not mind that much the copycat purr purrs... I just want higher quality in a compo in a way, you understand what I say here... Just maybe I just got it all wrong but to me it seem like a convert... I still like it in a way but it sure looks like software layered alterations and then rendering to layers with different types of patterns or so on... I love you doing art, want to see more but for me this one were a rip and you just got busted... Again I personalley do not care that much but for me it is what I see and think of it stright away when looking at it... I see that this is not made by mind... but more software aided craft.
Yazoo entry is original and his own, and also show the best work in pixels and workload very clear to me... so he is the winner of this I think, personally.
Do we all agree here?
1. We think it is ok to copy or redraw or even convert, but then the source must be included?
2. We can all agree that if the source provided let one with ease convert our self with thimantes or the like and it gets the same that it is abit lame?
3. We also agree in a way that original art by the artist is a greater, if the image is great?
4. We all think it is lame to pretend and hope for no others to spot the image converted or altered?
5. We all love the scene?
Come on... we are strange, let us be strange together and just have fun together inside our special little sphere... |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
I have to post this one: Gollum
Sit did just a marvelous image on the c64 again, and to me this image is so incredible... it is just plain hands down one of the best I have ever seen on the c64! And it is a copycat, but I do not mind... it is just so much better than the normal standard and it really blew me away this one... is it really possible to reproduce an image this way... not many can do this... WOW... should have won at X in my opinion...
The absolutely best image have seen in gray scale colours on the c64! |
| |
Alias Medron
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 39 |
If we want to make things simple we should divide gfx compos into "free" and "no copy" ones.. simple as that.
Afterall scene is about fun.. not bitching.
|
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
why? let us be true to the scene and just let it be there and then... the best rippers or original artists get the most out of it in a way... if you get away with it it is an achevement on its own... ha ha... LOL! I still think the gollum is one of the best c64 images I have ever seen and want it not to be in the looser category in a way... I just find it that great!
I also find hammerfist to be one of my absolute fav on the c64, it were done from another source, I do not mind, for me the hammerfist image is the c64 one! Also one of the best for me... |
| |
lemming
Registered: Oct 2009
Posts: 44 |
Dane wrote:
>Don't worry, I don't plan to enter any more competitions
>ever again I think.
Right, that's just how much fun and constructive it is when "true artists" start demanding others to explain themselves about something they've worked on hours, days, weeks, months.. and suspecting their techniques or just generally putting their work down as "boring and pointless" if there's eventually nothing else to complain about.
I suppose certain people are happy now. I certainly am not :(
|
| |
ptoing
Registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 271 |
Wow, some serious discussion going on in here.
I pretty much agree with Mermaid on this because if you just copy (in any way) a picture you are reducing yourself to a xerox machine with a human brain but you are not being original.
The thing is that when copying something someone else made you are copying the composition, the colours (if possible) and get a good result without necessarily having even a fragment of the skill of the original artist.
This means you are competing with content that might be very good in both composition, general execution and even motif but none of those are because you are skilled, it is because the original artist is.
So this makes it pretty much ver unfair imo towards other people who are entering a compo with original art but who might be less skilled than an industry professional someone else might be copying from. This is just sad, especially if the copier does this to get some kind of gratification. It's like showing someone a photo taken from the top of a large mountain saying you climbed up there and took it when in fact you did not.
Of course it is a bit different if you state what you copied from, but the problem here is that most sceners do not care (especially not at parties where most who vote are drunk anyway)
Comparing copying stuff from other artists to what Vermeer and other artists might have done is also a pretty bad analogy. Vermeer and those other dudes still used their own sources, they posed their models they set up their scenes, they made their own compositions, they thought about the subject matter and what they wanted to convey with it. I would venture a guess that most demosceners who copy stuff just think, "This is a cool looking picture, the other dudes will love it, so I will copy it" or perhaps "These colours would be easy to transfer to the C64 palette, good copy material"
Without wanting to sound whiny, these kinda circumstances are why I do not feel to enter a compo again when I have to compete against copies and the majority of the audience does not even care or does not have the enough knowledge about art or pixelling to be really able to care.
The main problem is that a big part of the demoscene is about the childish notion to wow everyone by any means not caring about any kind of integrity. I can see why this would be something that teenagers would do to get gratification and shoulderpats from their peers, but seeing grownups still doing the same things after more than 15 years or so is sad. |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1646 |
EDIT: Second thought.. better not enter crappy discussions like this. :) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
The motivation for doing a copy can be to wow the scene, but I think this motivation tells something about the artist. Same as the motivation to do an original piece. In my opinion, both motivations are valid to compete in the same competition. One wants to win maybe, other wants to show originality.
Same goes with music competitions, there are house tracks and random noise tracks. Both are valid to compete, no complaints during voting and the house track is likely to score higher. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
I would ask the question on here that, should the competitions be limited to "original" art, would we actually get "the Best" or would we just get compos full of cutesy cartoons, surreal objects and colour explosions? I don't remember seeing any "Roger Deans" doing c64 art recently tbh.
Steve
|
| |
ptoing
Registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 271 |
I think in a normal graphics competition that is not specifically a "copy-compo" or something you should try to do the best YOU can, not the best someone else can do. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
Hmm... The discussion above is interesting in many ways, and I think that one problem is how we, talented, gifted and intelligent beings, relate to the concept of "art". Richard Wollheim states in "Art and its Objects" (1980) that art is "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture", and the discussion may go on forever if we do not understand that we all have different views on that subject.
Maybe anyone else have thoughts about the history of scene graphics? From that history we may be able to point out the main lines that may define what we mean with what we are doing. I would love to discuss that. We already have over 20 years of history. I would be shocked if we were unable to define why and what we are doing at compos.
And again: I did not init this discussion trying to stop Dane or anyone else from doing what they love to do. I am just pointing out the problem of judging the quality of pictures and skill of artists in a compo, if they by definition have two different principle origins.
I believe that compos through history were organized to promote originality and technical skill (the scene is obsessed by elite thinking, and competition, as we all know - that's a main part of the fun), and should also keep on doing that. Am i right? |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
and if you don't give your audience what THEY want to see you create apathy and all your competition entries are a waste of time.
and it seems to me that the "audience" on here would rather see a mixture of original items AND sharply executed copies.
i would say yet again...
artists should not dictate the nature of future competitions. The voters should.
Steve |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
hm. i think it is better for me to quit all scene activities for a while. i cannot stand this unreasonable slugfest anymore. imo it was always the major opportunity of the c64 scene for people doing what they want to do. it is no professional department and i am sure that requesting too much control does no favor in this case. see ya. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
Uh, 'Art' is a dangerous word ;-)
Also it brings in the point of the audience.
Among 'artists' I often observe great jealousy if a big impact is reached with little effort.
Same with music which you can easyly mark as art, too.
Popsongs sell best, no matter how much more clever classical, alternative, etc music might be.
As a musician I would go bananas if my uber-song loses hands down to a 3 chord popsong - which usually happens btw.
Same with pictures.
All too many photopgraphy forums witness that a nude-pic tends to get all the attention - no matter how cheap or plain it was made. Not by all visitors, but by the majority.
As mermaid put it: fear.
Getting rid of (unfair?) competitors is nothing else than the fear of losing to 'inferior' art. Which is a contradiction in itself.
As Oscar Wilde put it: 'all art is quite useless'.
Either enjoy what you do and do it, or don't.
It's worth nothing if you're doing it not for you.
If you do it for others, live with the fact that others may lack your 'depth' or merely point of view on things.
This behavior is quite natural. I disfavor SCPU and REU based effects since this threatens my niche of c64 coding that Im familiar with, too :) (Blureu at breakpoint has caused a smiliar discussion than this here).
With one exception:
most people here did not participate and even state that they will continue not to.
I fail to understand why. Seriously. This compo was announced for quite some time. The entries had a good chance of getting a big audience which was known from the start. There are very, very few gfx compos out there. Even less outside of parties. In my opinion: for all that actually give a damn about gfx compos: this was(!) THE chance to contribute and bring a change! You can not change things by doing nothing. Noone complained about the rules which were clearly stated either. We received several requests about the strictness of the rules (scroller, music allowed etc) and veto took all of them into account.
I really do understand what the 'full artists' (idea,motive,handcraft,pixel) here want to say, but it is (sadly) very much pointless (since the compo ended and non of 'you' contributed).
I see no valid excuse for it (except for: I was not interessted enough).
Future compos will certainly consider and integrate much of what has been said here. Yet, if you apply those 'standards' (which are NEW (good maybe, but new nontheless)) here, we end up with two entries.
Yay for you gfx scene - sorry, lame remark by me. |
| |
Yazoo
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 227 |
Quote:artists should not dictate the nature of future competitions. The voters should.
exactly what i say... i for myself dont like 1:1 scans, with just little touching up. but its the voters who decide... if they vote high on a scan - they will not disappear - and we gotta live with that i guess.
its like with the economic system... when only very few ppl buy a product, it wont be produced anymore.
so i still hope that the voters will be sensitised a little more, and not "buy" cheapo scans.
still i wouldnt mind some more strict compo-rules (workstages, no touched up scans allowed...)
yep - there will still be unrevealed scans, but atleast a few less i guess. and reverse engineering for workstages makes scanning less attractive, because it is going to eat some extra-time.
on the other hand we shouldnt overregulate things.
as for hand-made copies... i have no real problem with them, when someone obviously spent lots of time on them, and added some extra-c64-feeling. they were always part of the c64 szene.
and for this compo... i am still happy that veto and enthusi organized it. it lead to an interesting discussion, which is a good thing. maybe just some ppl need to calm down a little.
|
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
Veto... you are right... I understand what you say here... I will not post more in this thread.. it is to nerdy even for me... going on in all directions... You just wanted to hold something fun and now it is a nightmare for you... I see this... bad bad bad... You did something and you of all should get pro feedback for doing so... thanx for doing something for the scene. You dudes also gathered prizes and all... not fun anymore that now... I understand you Veto. This sucks!
mermaid, you are right, STE you are right, PAL are right and all others are right too... let us just keep it the scene way and the real quality voters we have will vote for the better ones... no matter what...
We all killed SIT returning to the scene, let us just not kill the whole scene too... I told you dudes that things like this is just the start of the end... Kill the scene or just leave it alive, breathing, evolving and free... up to yah all... the more struggle and work and negative energy one gets from this hobby the faster this hobby will just end... the more fun and posetivety we get from this hobby, the longer the scene will stay and even attract new members that want a fun hang around and framework for their hobby with good friends and meetings and compos and all... we are a smal family and should take care of each other... it is about having fun this... and now this does just feel lame and bitter and negative... I hang up for a week too...
Yours PAL |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Quoting Vetohm. i think it is better for me to quit all scene activities for a while. i cannot stand this unreasonable slugfest anymore. imo it was always the major opportunity of the c64 scene for people doing what they want to do. it is no professional department and i am sure that requesting too much control does no favor in this case. see ya.
While I encourage to continue your fantastic work, I exactly know how do you feel. This thread represents most of the reasons why I decided to avoid CSDb and the C64 scene. |
| |
Cresh
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 354 |
I stopped reading this 10+ pages ago.
Pixel purists & artsy-fartsy scene mentors made it.
Fact is that Veto convinced some guys to make something (Digger - he even made his own editor!) and all they got in return is this flood of crap.
Thank you.
Ps.
Se7en, please bring back your web page! ;)
How was it called. Art that isn't? |
| |
Carrion
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 317 |
i stop following this thread now becaue i think all was said.
but my few cents at this time:
1. I understand Veto but also I think it was verry valuable subject to discuss here. despite what some say csdb is the center of our demoscene and it is a good platform for this kind of discussion.
2. verry interesting look at what an art is from STE and Enthusi - thanks. for me it was really good summary of the whole discusion.
3. I'm especially sorry for my emotions on the Ricci thread - sorry Mermaid it was rude to say what I said.
|
| |
Dane
Account closed
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 421 |
I would just like to appeal to Veto to not stop organizing compos. It's a good way to breathe life into a scene that gets sleepier by the year.
Adjusting rules for competitions or even disqualifying entries might be necessary in the future, but don't feel put down by the resulting discussion. I don't think anybody feels that you have done anyone a disservice. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
You are right Dane. And I will try to be less of an arty-farty philosopher and actually try to contribute next time there is a compo like this. I'm still learning (I hope I never stop), and all you pixelgods out there are the best teachers. Keep it up. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
Quote:I would ask the question on here that, should the competitions be limited to "original" art, would we actually get "the Best" or would we just get compos full of cutesy cartoons, surreal objects and colour explosions?
non original art was banned on most competitions since at least the 90s. (wether people still cheated and could get away with it, thats another question) |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
All, let's close this topic now and start pixelling for the next compo, rite? :X
PS Had anyone seen the official results yet? |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
post #1: Deadline for voting is June 7th 2011
;-) |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Quote: Quote:I would ask the question on here that, should the competitions be limited to "original" art, would we actually get "the Best" or would we just get compos full of cutesy cartoons, surreal objects and colour explosions?
non original art was banned on most competitions since at least the 90s. (wether people still cheated and could get away with it, thats another question)
yep and judging by the csdb database, that was a roaring success :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
i dont know. if by that you mean that you are missing tons of cheesy comicstrip repaints - then i agree, it was. i cant see how it harmed the diversity of compo entries at least. |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
actually i was referring to the various competition winners and placers that have just been commented on as "not original" shall we say on this database from recent years.
maybe you should read it sometime? before getting narky?
Steve |
| |
Dane
Account closed
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 421 |
Regarding the recent comments and original supplies for some of my pictures here on CSDB, I have uploaded some workstages and/or production notes for Gfx, Ray of Light, Homoerotic, Sleepyhead and Bextor. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate any comments on those releases further than just calling them conversions.
Anyway, that's it for me. I'll focus on music now. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 504 |
Thing is, people can copy, convert, whatsoever, and if the result looks nice, it looks nice, if it is nude women, even better. One is free to do anything. However if you talk about art and artists, an artwork always consists of two parts, the idea, and how you realize the idea with your pixelling techniques and style. If the idea is not yours, then one half is simply missing, and thus you will loose penissize. An artist without ideas essentially lacks creativity or invests most of the creativity in faking some workingsteps.
I guess everyone tried to convert once, i even wrote converters, for the sake of seeing how good porn could look on a c64. But when it is about doing handpixelled/petscii graphics i chose to do all on my own, for having the free choice about my motif that i can adopt at any time during pixelling, and last but not least, i just feel better this way, what supports my motivation while drawing.
Easy like that.
Bitbreaker/Nuance^Metalvotze |
| |
Ragnarok
Account closed
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 1 |
what bitbreaker said. +dont be such pussies |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1646 |
As a compo organizer (LCP compo) I'd just like to make a comment from that point of view:
The LCP philosophy has always been a liberal one when it comes to compos, i.e. to try to keep the number of rules that specify what is allowed and what is not at a minimum and instead leave the issue of what is good/bad/acceptable etc to those who vote in the compo. This idea was already mentioned by someone above in this thread but I just wanted to say that this is how it works on LCP. For example, if someone puts music in their "graphics entry" (a big taboo for some, at least once upon a time), some will vote "sucks" to this, and someone will perhaps like it because they felt that the music fitted in and they may not be as anal about keeping compo categories strictly isolated from each other even though such an entry would be closer to "demo" than pure graphics.
The same logic of course apply to various forms of graphics entries as such. People may submit workstages or not. They may do stuff that resides in the borderland of "graphics" or not. (Animations, anyone? Animations clearly fall between the stools of the "classic" compo categories.) They may make copies of some other pictures, or even converts, but don't tell people about it (hence people would have to judge the picture as such, rather than the process that lead up to it) or they may supply the original they used and tell people what their sources were, and so forth.
Then it is up to the voters to make sense of this. If someone dislikes the fact that a certain pixel d00d did not state whether the picture he submitted was a copy or not, then one may simply vote low for this entry. This approach can be questioned of course, but we prefer to leave issues like this to the scene, rather than to decide those things "von oben". I don't think there will ever be a state of agreement in the scene, where people will think the same way about the value of various contributions to the compo. Conclusion: Let people have their opinions and let them vote accordingly. Don't force them to comply to rules that fit some people but not others. If most people dislike something, it will be voted low anyway, but at least we got some healthy plurality in the releases available for our dear machine. |
| |
Archmage
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 185 |
When I look at this thread, all I see is a whole bunch of letters. |
| |
Mr. SID
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 424 |
^^^ What Archmage said.
Plus I see some pretty pictures at the beginning of the thread. Whoever made those should make some more! |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 504 |
@Frantic
I guess that works fine with a c64-audience only, but not so well on mixed partys. |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quoting Mr. SID^^^ What Archmage said.
Plus I see some pretty pictures at the beginning of the thread. Whoever made those should make some more!
Really dissapointing :( |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
some like to cover their eyes.... for peace and harmony. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
I actually find this thread a positive thing, quite inspiring really. I know hardly any minds have been changed, but it makes me less worried about trying to hang on to the hardcore pixelling element of my work which is needed to compete in compos, instead I may as well just go out there and have some fun making new things! (of course I'll still obsess over it too much and never complete half of the things I start, but what the hell! :) ) |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 271 |
Me as an example were not able to get my contribution ready, I were working hard for it to be great... guess it just must be released later on instead...
|
| |
VoDKa
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 32 |
"Dont wire bad!" Jesus |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
I dont really feel like getting involved in this,
but i feel myself touched by the topic since the issue at hand somehow also applies to music.
A cover / remix in a competition.
And the author didnt even bother to mention the source. Or maybe he did,
and you just didnt get the memo?
Like THAT's never happened.
So what ? It's been like that for ages.
That's how it is. Deal with it, it's part of the way this scene works and is part of why it has survived for so long.
It works for me. Should i feel guilty about it ? Tough question.
Depends on who you ask. I tend to think not.
"BBbbut, he didnt tell the truth!! He's a cheater and a liar!"
Lets be honest now. People aren't stupid (i hold on to that hope).
In this day and age, in this "scene" - no one with two working braincells would seriously think he could "get away with it".
Win the prize. Take the cake and laugh all the way home about the stupid fuckers he so cleverly cheated on.
Victory!! Finally!!!
Seriously ? I think not. And (i hope) neither do you.
So whats the point ? Why are you making such a big issue about it ? Get over it.
If you refuse to recognize something as "art" according to your standards, then so be it.
Atleast give the poor bastard the benefit of craftsmanship or skill and take it easy.
Dont be so agitated about it. It's just a compo.
Most of the audience is just going think "oooh pretty picture" or "ahh nice tune" anyway.
Not every one is as nerdy and sophisticated analytically full of issues as you.
Some people just enjoy something and have fun and i think compos are alot of fun. "NO COPY" or not.
Tough shit. Grow a pair.
A lot of my stuff is based on the work of others. Most of the time its obvious. Other times not so much.
Hell, one time I even covered a cover of somone elses original and didnt even know it!
Good thing i didnt place that one in a compo, i probably would have went to hell three times over!!
Sometimes i even like to keep people in the dark and see if they recognize the source and if they agree with,
or heaven forbid even enjoy the way i imagined it. How i transported it to our limited but beloved medium the c64.
Basing your stuff on other peoples work, not being "original". Does that mean i'm not an artist ? what am i then, a plumber ?
You could argue with me about the difference of "art" and "craftsmanship" or "skill" and if craftsmanship and skill couldnt be an art form itself for days.
But please, dont come down on me with that holier than thou shit preaching me your moral standards and all that.
Does anyone see the hypocrisy here?
On the one hand, everybody and his dog is ejaculating over themselves about mahoney's LCP demo compo entry,
some even saying it should have won.
While, if i understand it correctly - his entry is "just" a cover of some swedish band's song.
He digitized it, arranged / copied some notes from the original song,
came up with a clever way to crunch it all into a small one filer and then placed it in a demo compo.
And suddenly everybody's going bat shit crazy about how great it is. Yet here, people totally get their knickers all in a twist because "its not original" and all that shit.
Seriously ?
It's part of the scene people. Deal with it.
Which is why i felt comfortable in the first place with making music on the c64. Oh sorry, i forgot. I'm not really "making" music. I'm just copying some one elses work. Oh dear!
I even dared to put a cover (or "reinterpretation" as i put it) in the X 2010 compo.
And it didnt even occur to me that i was somehow "cheating" or otherwise doing something wrong.
I slept like a baby that night and i probably wouldnt ever have thought about it until someone in a comment to the tune here on csdb came up with the "cover in compo" issue.
Be as it may.
Next time around there's a compo and it's not explicitly forbidden to compete with a cover and i happen to have a tune ready that just so happens to be based on the work of someone else, rest assured you're going to see my name on the competitors list again.
With a big grin on my face.
Sorry for the lenghty text and all :-D
|
| |
Devia
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 401 |
If it's a "no covers allowed" compo, then entering with a cover is of course to be considered cheating and the entry should be disqualified. If the cover isn't revealed until after the compo is over, well, then your cheating payed off...
When it's not stated if covers are allowed or not, then personally I tend to not vote covers as high... This is of course a problem since I might not have recognized if some tune was a cover...
So really, it should be stated if only original compositions are allowed or not.
Lately though, I tend to dont give a shit and just vote for whatever I find the most interesting, Best sounding/looking or original idea in no particular order...
weak formulated comporules means anything goes.
|
| |
DeeKay
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 363 |
Quoting Digger
In theory it is (or it will be) possible to write i.e. a Phyton script (Mr. SID come on!) to convert any image into pixels using i.e. Hein or Carrion's pixelling style.
So I could create my original artwork in PhotoShop and then convert to C64 in a best possible way (preserving hand pixelling quality), it's even possible to breed a few styles (using genetic algorithms) to create hybrids (i.e. Mermaid/Archmage).
Sounds too scary? ;-)
Yeah, definately. I'd like to see you try! <:-) There's a reason why Mermaid, Carrion, Archmage, Joe, Ptoing, Mirage etc pictures look so good, and it's because they know things about pixelling you could never teach a program... A program will never actually "see" a picture, it does not know which detail is important and which is not, and it cannot place pixels just like someone doing it by hand. I know Lars has spent considerable time in Timanthes to "teach" it all his knowledge, and we've done a lot of that with Mufflon, too... But there's simply a limit to how far software "intelligence" can go... You could teach programs to simulate a certain dither style, but that's about it... And I'd like to see a program that emulates f.ex. Joe's crazy dithering experiments, that'll probably require a supercomputer! ;-) |
| |
Zierliches Püppchen
Registered: Jan 2012
Posts: 14 |
Copy or not, the Cyberpunk Girl is a real nice one. Perfect Technique. Diggrs and JAzoos Technical Skills too, but the Motives doesn't impress me that much. My 10 Cents ;-) |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
@DK: genetic algorithms will take care of that ;-) |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Lol how could I miss this? I must have been drunk.
The thread is pure gold :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
We should have this discussion again - its certainly more fun than the annual voting and/or tags drama :=) |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Now that I have read everthing... Sorrry but what's with Mermaid's stuff here? I purposely havent used worst words because this is just fucked up. Who cares? I love all these pictures. This is just fucking up people for no reason whatsoever |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Ugh, I expressed my opinion too in the past, yuk.
Stop necropooping, pls. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
We should have another double screen compo. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4721 |
I still stand by my opinions above. But yeah. Necropoop. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11354 |
Deev wins |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
I give up, if even multi-screen bitmap pictures are considered C64 Graphics (multi-colour) my arguments are pretty invalid.
Though using my definition of a gfx format (only code required to show the gfx, which includes moving gfx if larger picture, and having an editor for the format publicly available), I guess it's okay. |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
@Compyx: The double screen compo was supposed to be kind of a mini demo competition - not specifying double screen as graphics format. |
| |
Compyx
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 631 |
Quoting v3to@Compyx: The double screen compo was supposed to be kind of a mini demo competition - not specifying double screen as graphics format.
Right, well, that's what you get from not reading all 190+ previous posts. :)
I'll shut up for now. |
| |
FATFrost
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 211 |
Yes another compo would be great, so long as it's not full of converted gfx again, otherwise we could have a converted pic compo? ;) |
| |
DKT
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 99 |
Quoting FATFrostconverted pic compo?
YES! It could be very interesting... |
| |
v3to
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 150 |
Do you remember the rules of the second double screen compo? Including the animated reference check (try mouse over the icons)?
http://compo.c64pixels.com/doublescreen/entries2013.html
Actually I found it pretty interesting and also entertaining to see how the artists worked or implemented the reference pictures.
Atm I am thinking about another competition, probably later this year. But no promises. |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 427 |
Quote: Quoting Digger
In theory it is (or it will be) possible to write i.e. a Phyton script (Mr. SID come on!) to convert any image into pixels using i.e. Hein or Carrion's pixelling style.
So I could create my original artwork in PhotoShop and then convert to C64 in a best possible way (preserving hand pixelling quality), it's even possible to breed a few styles (using genetic algorithms) to create hybrids (i.e. Mermaid/Archmage).
Sounds too scary? ;-)
Yeah, definately. I'd like to see you try! <:-) There's a reason why Mermaid, Carrion, Archmage, Joe, Ptoing, Mirage etc pictures look so good, and it's because they know things about pixelling you could never teach a program... A program will never actually "see" a picture, it does not know which detail is important and which is not, and it cannot place pixels just like someone doing it by hand. I know Lars has spent considerable time in Timanthes to "teach" it all his knowledge, and we've done a lot of that with Mufflon, too... But there's simply a limit to how far software "intelligence" can go... You could teach programs to simulate a certain dither style, but that's about it... And I'd like to see a program that emulates f.ex. Joe's crazy dithering experiments, that'll probably require a supercomputer! ;-)
6 years later and it's coming ;-P)
https://kronbits.itch.io/pixatool
And some videos:
https://cartrdge.com/davitmasia/preview-of-the-c64-style-video-.. |
