| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
a plea from an old schooler
please dont use modified PAL emulating screenshots for pictures on this site.
people may want to use this site to download unmodified c64 art in gif or png format with pure pixel definition.
if they want to see the stuff in highly debatable pal emulation mode people can download the PRG files and view them in that mode on an emulator.
Thanks
Steve |
|
... 167 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: "Unless of course they're converted from gif to koala and then run through a koa to prg maker. Now would that be allowed? The picture was released at some point but the method of delivery has changed by creating a new prg from it..."
i have seriously no idea what you are trying to say with that. if the koala is there, then there is no reason to make a screenshot so you can recreate the koala from the screenshot. or did i miss something?
err, yes I think you did.
Ste said he's converted gifs to koa because there are no C64 files of those missing pictures... the rest kind of logically follows from that and your reply to his post.
Read:
"and to retrieve some of the older stuff thats exactly whats happened over the years. i personally have converted alot of 16 colour indexed gifs back to koala format to get a c64 file again" |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
<Post edited by chatGPZ on 19/8-2010 10:30>
sure, it might have happened. he might have had gifs from koalas that dont exist anymore.
the point is, i cant see how it applies to this site. if you add the prg, beeing able to recreate it from a screenshot is a pointless exercise. and if you dont have the prg, but do have the gif... you can recreate the prg and upload it.
so again, what am i missing?
(and as a sidenote - adding such recreated prg files in place of the original releases isnt considered best practise either, and should generally be avoided, as we want the actual files from back then, not something lookalike) |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Quote: sure, it might have happened. he might have had gifs from koalas that dont exist anymore.
the point is, i cant see how it applies to this site. if you add the prg, beeing able to recreate it from a screenshot is a pointless exercise. and if you dont have the prg, but do have the gif... you can recreate the prg and upload it.
so again, what am i missing?
(and as a sidenote - adding such recreated prg files in place of the original releases isnt considered best practise either, and should generally be avoided, as we want the actual files from back then, not something lookalike)
"Now would that be allowed? The picture was released at some point but the method of delivery has changed by creating a new prg from it..."
With all the rules about releases I just wanted to know if no C64 file existed "would it be allowed" to convert a gif to a prg and upload both to create a release as that prg is NOT the originally released file.
|
| |
DeeKay
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 362 |
btw: I demand all Cruise pictures to be "greenized", since that's how the artist saw it on his greenscreen monitor when he made them! ;-)
But that's not how the world at large saw it... And this is what a screenshot should look like!
Nonetheless: Like with Galways special-filtercurve-SID it would however be interesting to see the artist's original rendition when he made it.... But it should *not* be the default, just like Galway's filtercurve is not the default in SIDplay! ;-) |
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
Nice post-reply edit there Groepaz ;) |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Quote: btw: I demand all Cruise pictures to be "greenized", since that's how the artist saw it on his greenscreen monitor when he made them! ;-)
But that's not how the world at large saw it... And this is what a screenshot should look like!
Nonetheless: Like with Galways special-filtercurve-SID it would however be interesting to see the artist's original rendition when he made it.... But it should *not* be the default, just like Galway's filtercurve is not the default in SIDplay! ;-)
Now i really do dispute that "the whole world" viewed their c64s like vice shows it now with the pepto palette (or at least it's version of it) but logically if that were true the ALL the c64 emus and uploaded screenshots over the years would have a palette in them that was at least "a bit" like pepto.
but none of them do do they?
in fact despite all the claims to authenticity, vice is actually the odd one out palette wise. all the other palettes i have ever seen on gifs from many many other sources and emus until vice are much brighter and colour saturated.
so for almost 20 years, every artist who did their palettes by eye is wrong and vice is spot on? Now i realise that virtually no 2 self generated palettes match, but the law of averages says that out of say 10 artists then at least 5 would create a palette of roughly similar appearance to pepto for their stuff if thats what they saw.
but they havent, have they?
Steve |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
do you still dont get that there is no single pepto palette, and making it brighter and more saturated is a simple matter of using the user interface of the emulator and... make it brighter and more saturated, just like you did back in the day with your monitor or tv? *sigh*
both ccs64 and vice have had pal emulation (and palette generation) for many years btw. there is only one emu worth mentioning besides that (hoxs64) which doesnt. and yes, the pc64 and c64s and whatnot palettes are truely horrible and wrong.
and i still think your c64 is a 5 luma one =) |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
so if you want me to tune my output with vice because the base pepto palette is not as i knew it, it begs the question why i am being bitched at for doing the same thing for my screenshots but using photoshop and a palette i feel is more representative of what i saw than the "base" pepto palette is?
Steve |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
because tweaking the palette in the emu, ie generating it using proper relations, will always result in a palette which is correct.
on the other hand tweaking it by eye and manually comparing it using two monitors and all that almost certainly wont. most existing handmade palettes dont even manage to meet basic properties like the fact that there always exist 2 colors with exactly the same luminance (if you have a 9 luma vic). or even the basic fact that all colors have exactly the same saturation (thats quite hard to get right when dealing with rgb colors manually).
there ARE good reasons for why people stopped doing that roughly 15 years ago you know :)
|
| |
JCB
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 241 |
So where's the 5 luma palette for those of us who may have had that VIC revision? I can't specifically find that as an option for VICE, commandline or otherwise but having had a google around I saw someone mention having a 5 luma machine and that colours 9,8,7,1,7,8,9 (presumably a colour bar or similar grouping of pixels) looks like gold, which I think is probably about right.
Is it just a combination of selecting old vic and switching off "new luminances" from the VIC-II settings on the GUI?
And doesn't the fact that there are machines with only 5 lumas also mean the possible combinations of colours produced by PAL blending is lower?
|
| Previous - 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 - Next |
