Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in - nap
CSDb User Forums


Forums > C64 Pixeling > Double Screen Compo Voting
2011-05-08 15:10
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
 
... 195 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
 
2011-05-10 20:39
Wile Coyote

Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 637
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 there’s 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.
2011-05-10 21:24
Mermaid

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 335
Quote: I think Sinners All sums it up pretty well...

That's not about entering copies in compos though.
2011-05-10 21:38
Joe

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 224
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.
2011-05-11 12:47
Digger

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 421
@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 :)
2011-05-13 18:19
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 i’d 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 :)
2011-05-14 10:12
Sander

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 487
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 rules
Rule 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 Digger
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.(...)

This reasoning is beyond me... This makes it sound the compo was about doing the most optimized conversions.

Quoting Celtic
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.

Quoting Digger
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)

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.)
2011-05-14 13:54
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.
2011-05-14 16:54
hedning

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4596
What Sander said. A very important post.
2011-05-14 17:59
chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11116
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).
2011-05-14 22:25
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..
Previous - 1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 21 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
MAT64
Sentinel/Excess/TREX
Murphy/Exceed
Dymo/G★P
www.gb64.com
megatonn/Bronx
Martin Piper
katon/Lepsi De
Guests online: 149
Top Demos
1 Next Level  (9.8)
2 Mojo  (9.7)
3 Coma Light 13  (9.7)
4 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
5 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
6 No Bounds  (9.6)
7 Uncensored  (9.6)
8 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
9 Memento Mori  (9.6)
10 Bromance  (9.5)
Top onefile Demos
1 It's More Fun to Com..  (9.7)
2 Party Elk 2  (9.7)
3 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
4 Copper Booze  (9.5)
5 TRSAC, Gabber & Pebe..  (9.5)
6 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
7 Wafer Demo  (9.5)
8 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
9 Quadrants  (9.5)
10 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)
Top Groups
1 Nostalgia  (9.3)
2 Oxyron  (9.3)
3 Booze Design  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 Crest  (9.3)
Top Diskmag Editors
1 Jazzcat  (9.4)
2 Magic  (9.4)
3 hedning  (9.2)
4 Newscopy  (9.1)
5 Elwix  (9.1)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2024
Page generated in: 0.058 sec.