| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 501 |
C64 graphicians still conquering the ZX scene?... ;-)
...apparently ;)
At least this time skurwy , Raven and Data are credited in the .nfo ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9YgdSjl-nM
1:32 -> Creeping in the Shadows
1:36 -> Escape to Reality
1:47 -> Kind of Magic |
|
... 18 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 675 |
Quote: our Void has a straight converted interlaced AFLI picture (turn disk), not even touched up :) but back then it was already cool if you could achieve a high quality picture, we have grown since then and artistry became more important.
Ah, come on.
There is only VERY few truely original work out there.
And its always been two brands. Pixelperfection and creative artism ;-)
We all know those few that combine both.
But in 99% of the other cases its either wired or 'at least' (which is not negative thing in my book) inspired by existing art/gfx.
Boris Vallejo anyone? |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 501 |
Groepaz and rest - that's not what I am looking for. I am talking binary converts. Not converting Amiga pictures to advanced gfx modes like AFLI or IFLI. No touch-up work, not converting several bitplanes from Amiga to IFLI and stuff.
When you take Data's picture for example, this is pixel by pixel. Same for Raven's picture.
Did we have this kind of a BINARY ripoff from Amiga? I do not think so. |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576 |
Quote: Groepaz and rest - that's not what I am looking for. I am talking binary converts. Not converting Amiga pictures to advanced gfx modes like AFLI or IFLI. No touch-up work, not converting several bitplanes from Amiga to IFLI and stuff.
When you take Data's picture for example, this is pixel by pixel. Same for Raven's picture.
Did we have this kind of a BINARY ripoff from Amiga? I do not think so.
Considering there aren't too much Amiga/PC graphics using 16 colors or less (whilst the monochrome images also use a larger scale of colors the C64 could correlate with), that would be kinda impossible to achieve.
I don't really see your point. A rip is a rip, whether it's matching 100% by pixel or not. |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 501 |
Quote:A rip is a rip, whether it's matching 100% by pixel or not.
Well, I know this is such an academic discussion ;) but for me it's a difference between ripping and converting. And then I'd say a lot of c64 people were converting Amiga graphics, but not ripping it. Contrary to the ZX case, when the graphics were ripped.
It's like with code. If I see a vector routine and rip the code from it as it is and use it, that is ripping. But if I write my own routine from scratch, which looks 100% identical to the original one - that is not ripping. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 675 |
well, if you put it like this, then there is no 'rip' at all.
If you convert a c64 hires bitmap to speccy it is by nature pixel-exact (not to mention colors here).
Vice versa as well.
It is NOT binary ripping as the bitmap structure from the speccy is quite different (less sane even) from C64.
So I claim: there is no 'ripping', everything is conversion.
Its just a 1:1 conversion in this case.
Like early conversions in the 90s from 1bit PC-gfx.
So you seem to term it like: lossless conversion == rip.
That makes little sence imho. |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 501 |
Thanks for clarification enthusi, then my mistake is that when I say 'binary' I mean 'pixel exact' ;)
And that is what I call ripping.
When you 'rip' music, you take it out as blocks of memory and put them in as blocks of memory (yeah, I know there might be some 'fixing' involved, but that's nitpicking).
On the other hand, saying that drawing a picture in IFLI that shows some gfx originally made by Vallejo is 'ripping' makes no sense to me. |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576 |
Quoting wackeeIt's like with code. If I see a vector routine and rip the code from it as it is and use it, that is ripping. But if I write my own routine from scratch, which looks 100% identical to the original one - that is not ripping.
Well that's comparing apples and oranges. Putting into a parallel with coding: let's say if you'd have a converter which would compile code from Amiga to C64 with a press of a button, but the effects would be dumbed down and accommodated to the C64's hardware limits. Perhaps you'd change it here and there to make it a bit nicer. Would you call it your own work?
None of the graphics we bought up were made from scratch, some of them weren't even touched after the conversion, yet still credited as original art.
Once you convert a piece of graphic, you make a 100% replica of the outlines, the filling technique, the structure, the shadings, the textures... Basically the whole skillset and creative process of an artist, except the exact place of colors/pixels. And improving converted graphics doesn't require too much knowledge, energy and time, only a tiny fraction of what the original artist used for creating his work. Doesn't seems too distinctive compared to the C64->Speccy conversions to me.
Whilst if we talk about copying, it is a different question altogether. You'll still plagiarize, but at least the technical part of your work will be based on your own experience/routine, especially if the formats differ a lot. |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 501 |
Well, not being too serious, in the case with the code converter, I think the work effort put into the tool would be probably much greater than the complexity of the converted code itself ;) and at that point it would deserve as much appreciation as original code. No? ;) |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1576 |
Quote: Well, not being too serious, in the case with the code converter, I think the work effort put into the tool would be probably much greater than the complexity of the converted code itself ;) and at that point it would deserve as much appreciation as original code. No? ;)
In that case, just for the sake of the argument, let's say that a person converts code with a tool made by someone else :)
It was quite rare that the graphic-converters were made by the same people who converted the graphics. Most of the "graphicians" used 3rd party tools for that. |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 702 |
Creating code for high quality converts would probably take longer than creating a picture, however as you all know (And i am to also blame for this :-)) once the converter is created, click on a button and any amount of pictures pop out :-)
In particular converters are useful for custom gfx formats (for example see the CI-FLI HIRES mode in demolicious) that would take the artist a long long time to create something of this quality.
There are some of the types of converts below.
Direct converts - Converted as is using source from another artist/picture
Assisted converts - Same as above, but tweaked manually for increase in quality
Original converts - Drawn by the artist using pen/paper or photoshop and then converted via the converter. More credible (although not for artists c64 technical skills due to converter doing the job) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
