| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5096 |
Release id #237162 : Tribute to Vangelis
@4gent,
1) feels you took those quotes out of context
2) I even said to 2 girls on the schoolyard when I was 9 that I'm never gonna have sex because its disgusting
3) Talent added so much of his own, that I consider it an original work, Vermeer traced outlines with pinhole camera, Talent used another work for reference I couldnt care less. |
|
... 192 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
“The artist's goal to add the own style and fill the work with spirit and emotions.”
“I used about 5-6 photos from net to create this original portrait that has the ethereal feel, that befit the sad case of the tribute and filled the pixels with life and soul to express my appreciation to Vangelis.”
These quotes are from Talent earlier in the discussion: https://csdb.dk/release/?id=237162&show=review
The original used here is built out of two images © ZBrush artist vahidahmadizb2016.
I see zero artistic effort in the C64 version. The nice dithering is there but as stated by several pixel artists in the release discussion, it does not look like man-made either.
It’s funny that ‘that white thing’ on the right side of the original model turns into a keyboard though. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
I love how on the C64 version orange pixels show up in place where there was skin of Vangelis' hand showing through his beard in the original. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quote: I love how on the C64 version orange pixels show up in place where there was skin of Vangelis' hand showing through his beard in the original.
Yes, if going into details you can find lots of artefacts that raise (ninja) eyebrows. |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 496 |
Well then. I mostly agree with Electric here. Though his craft and style does give it value to me.
But, as Electric exposed Talent’s denial of using 1 reference, I feel Talent was trying to trick us into believing otherwise. That is a very ugly lie in my book. And makes me question his other work, forever.
And there are many ‘respected’ artists who choose to claim the work, but not admitting it. I know quite a few who chose to hide it :)
What we do forget here is the public; we should avoid caring too much about opinions from 95% of the sceners. (E.g. I get feedback on my style from guys who wear the same clothes as in the 90s, case closed). |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting SanderWell then. I mostly agree with Electric here. Though his craft and style does give it value to me.
Yes, I've said it too and repeating: the dithering is very nice and creates very unusual realistic tones rarely seen on C64. Would love to see how they're done and see ppl implementing those methods in demo effects. Maybe something Censor can work on? However, these dithered tones (that are rather 'muddy' compared with normal C64 hand-made colour bursts) you can see in some officially converted images. |
| |
Frostbyte
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 183 |
FFS, wrote a LONG response to Oswald, and it went into binary heaven when submitting.
But I think I've already said everything I want to say, apart from the fact that Talent does have a talent - even if using some conversion aids, his graphics have a mind-bogglingly high quality to them. I just wish for a little bit of openness about the process, as the ever increasing choir also seems to do. And this is not just about Talent, it is about respect towards original authors of the SOURCE images, as well as judges (us, the scene) of the TARGET images as well across the whole C64 graphics scene.
My final words on this topic:
1) Be respectful towards the original author(s) and credit them where the SOURCE image has elements of their work
2) Be respectful towards your fellow sceners, especially fellow pixeling artists, and be open about the process how images were created. Let your fellow sceners decide if they care about every single pixel being pushed by hand, or using the aid of converters or AI or whatever modern high quality tools available.
3) If the above two sound like unreasonable demands, compare using someone else's image(s) as basis for your graphics to using someone else's music as basis for your SID tunes. Both are fine, as long as original artists are credited. For the latter it is given that we credit the original artists. For graphics, I still don't understand why this isn't the case. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 37 |
Perhaps even the dithering process may be not as complicated as people thought. I'm guessing there's two different conversions of the same image being used; each one having it's own attribute values within the automated conversion process. Then, a pixel-by-pixel grid is applied to those two conversions with the odd pixels 'active' in the first, and even pixels 'active' in the second. Then, you just place those two as layers on top of each other and you get the final image. If you place the same layer on top of itself and you offset it by a scanline, you get pretty basic conversion results which could very well be those initial two conversions that were used.
https://i.ibb.co/Ld2SXLQ/vangelis-dithering.png |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 275 |
Electric: You Sir, shouldnt open your mouth too wide, Sir double standards. While you make pretty speeches, and try to harm Talent and his work, you realy should look at yourself and your so well organized ZOO Compitition, where only original work is allowed. Right?
Coltrane
Mixed Graphics Competition at Zoo 2015 : #1
But it has ofcourse advantages to be the organizer, disq other entries of wiring / copying while your own "work" goes through ;) |
| |
Peacemaker
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 275 |
Quote: Perhaps even the dithering process may be not as complicated as people thought. I'm guessing there's two different conversions of the same image being used; each one having it's own attribute values within the automated conversion process. Then, a pixel-by-pixel grid is applied to those two conversions with the odd pixels 'active' in the first, and even pixels 'active' in the second. Then, you just place those two as layers on top of each other and you get the final image. If you place the same layer on top of itself and you offset it by a scanline, you get pretty basic conversion results which could very well be those initial two conversions that were used.
https://i.ibb.co/Ld2SXLQ/vangelis-dithering.png
your post does not make any sense at all. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5096 |
Quote: Perhaps even the dithering process may be not as complicated as people thought. I'm guessing there's two different conversions of the same image being used; each one having it's own attribute values within the automated conversion process. Then, a pixel-by-pixel grid is applied to those two conversions with the odd pixels 'active' in the first, and even pixels 'active' in the second. Then, you just place those two as layers on top of each other and you get the final image. If you place the same layer on top of itself and you offset it by a scanline, you get pretty basic conversion results which could very well be those initial two conversions that were used.
https://i.ibb.co/Ld2SXLQ/vangelis-dithering.png
its the inherent quality of ordered dithering (hand pixeled or ordered doesnt matter) that if you take every 2nd pixel you get a solid color :)
Do you know Floyd-Steinberg dithering? Automated process, still you can not do with it this. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 21 - Next |
