Then why do you most certainly word your postings like i did?
Like which? From what i remember i wrote two columns about the subject. Maybe you should re-read them, cause i have the impression there's some serious overblowing going on...
Yeah, right, like i've never worked in Fun/Gunpaint.. Besides: If YOU choose to pixel your stuff on c64 in these editors and others do great pictures too in IFLI WITHOUT these buggy editors on Amiga or in Photoshop, wouldn't you say your unneccessary labor is your very own choice?
Oh my, here we go again, I see you've been talking to some people... Actually no. From what i remember i did write that with some people i wanted to see some workstages or see them working. If that's the same as accusing somebody, then that's your problem. Especially since you never were one of them.
In other communities it's totally normal to have technical means of verification, just think of the cheaters in the gaming community and stuff like punkbuster. Or why would you think handing in workstages is a requirement these days for pixel competitions? Do the organizers accuse EVERYONE taking part in the competition of wiring? Applying your logic "asking for proof" = accusation it most certainly would be... Witchhunters, every single one of them! ;-)
Point in case: I can do an IFLI-picture in 2 hours in Photoshop plus some fixing on c64 afterwards and win a Compo with it (one that doesn't require workstages that is!). So far, this can only be done in IFLI. And you ask me why I'm suspicious of IFLI-pictures?
If it looks shit on a real c64 and looks great on Bigscreen, it's unfair towards others whose pictures also look great on a real c64. Period. No witches were killed in the writing of this posting!
Well, I don't even know HOW you add the information about the GFX-mode used to a CSDB entry. I see you do (however this works!), but you're about the only person that does. Usually it just says "C64 Graphics" and that's it! Go check for yourself!
Bullshit reasoning. I was comparing to UFLI. _Only_ rastered IFLI-"Screenshots" compare 1:1 to UFLI, because they suggest it's actually Hires! But it's not, it's FAKE Hires! So just don't pretend it's Hires because that's what the editor seemingly displays, is that too much to ask for?... I don't, but it comes sufficiently close, especially using PAL-Emulation. This is _not_ true for rastered IFLI-Picture-Screenshots! They flicker (which cannot be displayed in GIF/PNG) _and_ they are murky because of $d016 (which CAN be displayed in GIF/PNG using blending!)
I would say a person who uploads pretend-hires-"Screenshots" of something that just IS NOT HIRES should do his homework.
Ok let's explain it a bit more so you don't miss the point one more time: hires vs lores : you see the same on bigscreen and on real c64 koala vs FLI : you see the same on bigscreen and on real c64 IFLI vs UFLI : IFLI does not look the same as on real c64, while UFLI does
In this particular context we were discussing the matter on how can someone tell the difference of different graphicsmodes _on the bigscreen_, weren't we?
Blended images are extraugly for my taste. Much uglier than emulated interlace, and I can't stand them.
Whatever, I still find the blended images ugly. They simply look rubbish, and have nothing in common with the C64 images. The dithered images still look a bit more close to the original, and that's what counts in my opinion.
