|
| |
Released At :
PCW Show 1989
Credits :
Download :
Look for downloads on external sites:
Pokefinder.org
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 17 March 2011
| Love this picture. Those were better times, before I knew what a loon Mel Gibson was. |
User Comment
Submitted by Exploding First on 14 October 2010
| From a certain distance the pic looks like a real photo. |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 30 September 2010
Look what I just found on my HD, fits this thread just nicely:
 |
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 29 September 2010
Somehow... Wide Eyes
Nicely pixeled, still. A sweet swirl would've ruined it for sure, it's too manly. |
User Comment
Submitted by Archmage on 29 September 2010
"I suggest a contest much like in the cnet days with the city cobra pic. Who can come up with the best version. Standard multicolor. Time to cowboy up."
Thanks, but I would rather eat my own spleen with a spoon. |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 29 September 2010
Quoting deev30+ people who have the pixelling talent to do decent copies Decent. But we're talking about top notch stuff here, not just decent :-D
I suggest a contest much like in the cnet days with the city cobra pic. Who can come up with the best version. Standard multicolor. Time to cowboy up. |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 29 September 2010
gpz: yes, that's the patternfill approach mentioned earlier. Okay for many pictures, but once you require a wider fade with more advanced dithering, you're SOL. However, at least these were hand-colored - and I even set a few pixels by hand! ;-)
The picture below is 100% automatic... |
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ on 29 September 2010
User Comment
Submitted by Frantic on 29 September 2010
| @DeeKay: And what do you need it for? :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Yazoo on 29 September 2010
| ok... deekay gfx = autovote of 1 in the future because of that secret tool :D (joking) |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 29 September 2010
| Arch: Hey, watch it! 8) That tool is just about 7 months old!... |
User Comment
Submitted by Archmage on 29 September 2010
"the power of automatic conversion (c) the Crest secret super cool converting tool, not a single pixel set by hand"
Hm, this explains a lot. ;) |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 28 September 2010
Never underestimate the power of automatic conversion (c) the Crest secret super cool converting tool, not a single pixel set by hand:
Still like STE's version much better though! ;-) Also, the LW2 pic rocks, Glover's nose is awesome...
Arch: That was me with the n00b.. And obviously, i meant to the c64 scene, which you entered about 3 years back IIRC! ;-)
Man, i just love CSDb drama.... 8) |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 28 September 2010
| actually freakin good for 4 colors only. and I disagree, the black/white skin difference is represented very well, esp. if you consider the 4 colors. |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
@archmage no, you were only mentioned by Carrion and Deev actually :)
edited for sound agressive sorry mom |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
no actually i was making allegation that Carrion is "tactical voting" hence:
"from 9.2 to 8.9 in one day. amen!"
and i comment on what i know about and can give interesting and possibly useful info and anecdotes about. just to rub salt in the wound i was afterall there at the time :)
and yes you are right, i comment publicly on very little new stuff. (i PM alot) probably because i cant be arsed in getting involved in your mutual back patting and circle jerk sessions that the new comments turn into.
and i will make the same offer to anyone who tells me its easy to convert real graphics to the c64. "lets see it then" you are welcome to go for it too if u want. |
User Comment
Submitted by Archmage on 28 September 2010
| Oh, and what Deev and the rest of the sensible crew said. Most of it at least. More or less. Give and take a bit. Nice enough picture though, techniquewise. |
User Comment
Submitted by Archmage on 28 September 2010
| Uhm... wait. Was I just called a n00b here somewhere?!? |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 28 September 2010
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 28 September 2010
"i am responding to what seems like a constant attack."
You've had an attitude ever since you showed up. Carrion votes a 6...you're reponse is "LOL! 6 from Carrion. fcking priceless", so are you suggesting your opinion is worth more than Carrion's in some way? The vast majority of your comments seem to be about your own work (plus some CNET stuff, to be fair), you rarely comment on anything new and don't seem interested in being part of the scene, it's just "me, me, me"! If people say anything that even remotely contradicts you (even in a friendly way), your response is usually sarcasm or anger. Yazoo's comment below, which I also don't necessarily agree with, but was in no way hostile towards you, was greeted with a blunt and angry response.
I think people are generally much more tolerant of you than I could be bothered to be, encouraging you to do more etc. To me it's a sad thing that people like Oys or Helm have gone away and all we got was your lumbering corpse!
"oh and if you care to notice i havent named ANYONE, i just quoted a very generalised style which seems prevalent at the moment, if YOU want to attach names to a stereotype thats up to you."
Since it seems to have become your standard response when anyone suggests you should perhaps try something more original, it comes across like it's targetted at pretty much everyone. If it's not targetted at everyone, then it doesn't work as a reason to keep rolling out film posters (not that I care if you're doing those, we just don't need the ego rampage whenever anyone dares to say it's a bit boring!)
"oh and you must have been a child prodigy then. congratulations!"
Maybe that's why I can articulate myself without telling people to 'fuck off'? Setting pixels isn't really more difficult than drawing with a pencil, I'm sure most kids could manage it.
"oh but look nothing survives before 1999. what a fcking surprise. terrible luck all you guys had who insisted they started in the 80's huh?"
I was at primary school, for god sake :) It's a minor point as far as I'm concerned, I don't think it's at all relevant to what anyone does these days. I didn't say I was releasing anything, most of the stuff wasn't worth releasing and it was rare that I completed anything! Whether you believe this is totally insignificant, it was just a minor comment in response to another one of your 'look how great I was because I was here 25 years ago' kind of statements. To me though, it was all useful practice!
and a less angry person (Stainless) wrote :) ...
"Now who's trivializing other peoples work. I disagree about the skill issue. There is skill involved, no doubt. Whether if its art or craftsmanship is a whole different question."
It is a skill yes, but it's a skill that a lot of people have (I did say a special skill :) ). I'm sure we could easily come up with a list of 30+ people who have the pixelling talent to do decent copies. The way an original piece turns out is more inividual to that person and also much harder to do well.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 28 September 2010
8-10 hours for a loader was the norm for everyone - STE86
Guess that makes me commercially unviable, as I ponder far too much :D
The Green Beret loader screen should have been better, and given a week or two or 3 could have been. |
User Comment
Submitted by Frantic on 28 September 2010
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
"i think this is great for 1989... but the same picture would be less cool when done in 2010 - because with all those tools like timanthes, p1 and stuff there's much less skill needed to make a copy of something"
away you go then let me know when u are done |
User Comment
Submitted by Yazoo on 28 September 2010
| less pictures plz - more talking :) this is entertaining hehe. btw - i think both sides have their points. the truth is somewhere in the middle eventually. i am happy to see STE'86 back on track after all those years - on the other hand he should eventually take comments less serious. each individual has got his own taste and opinion - and we live in a free world where we actually can speak up and comment on anything in any way we want :) and btw... i think this is great for 1989... but the same picture would be less cool when done in 2010 - because with all those tools like timanthes, p1 and stuff there's much less skill needed to make a copy of something. but i see it as it is... it was done in 1989 so its awesome. my 2 cents |
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 28 September 2010
| MOAR PICTURES LESS TALKING!!!12 |
User Comment
Submitted by Joe on 28 September 2010
I was looking upon this image thinking of the context in which it was made.
It is perceived in a very rushed tempo, given clear decisions quick on direction and detail.
I'm neither nostalgic nor a historian by any means, I simply look for valid general and specific criteria,
such as atmosphere or emotion, light, composition, texture and so forth when looking at images.
I want them to teach me how to look, do and find out myself.
And certainly this one does.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 28 September 2010
Oh BTW, Steve. MAN UP, WILL YA!
You gotta chill out a bit considering peoples votes and comments here.
I feel your pain man, but seriously.
You get agitated too easily. Relax. Think of swirly rainbow patterns and surreal colours.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 28 September 2010
Quoting deevThese days I don't really think of copying pics as a particularly special skill, there's loads of people out there who could accurately re-produce photos. Now who's trivializing other peoples work. I disagree about the skill issue. There is skill involved, no doubt. Whether if its art or craftsmanship is a whole different question. |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 28 September 2010
| Funny thing, on IRC we just had it about art vs craftsmanship. |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
@deev why dont you just fuck off and re read the thread?
it wasnt me that started this comparison thing if you bother to look?
i am responding to what seems like a constant attack.
oh and if you care to notice i havent named ANYONE, i just quoted a very generalised style which seems prevalent at the moment, if YOU want to attach names to a stereotype thats up to you.
oh and you must have been a child prodigy then. congratulations!
oh but look nothing survives before 1999. what a fcking surprise. terrible luck all you guys had who insisted they started in the 80's huh? |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 28 September 2010
"LOL i think we'll have to disagree that swirly rainbow patterns and surreal colours defines creativity mate"
A little insecure are we? Trying to trivialise the work of others to hide where your own work is lacking? A bit short on ideas beyond another chrome logo? :)
There's loads of works from Archmage, Joe, Sander, Ptoing etc that go far beyond this. It's not even about Interpretation, anyone with a pair of eyes (or in fact, probably one eye!), can see it. Whether you think that it is better or worse than copying is down to personal opinion, but I'd be interested to know exactly what you do see as creativity? It doesn't have to be scene artists, examples of non-scene artists would be fine.
"it seems nobody with the exception of Morpheus has done anything "identifiable" for over 15 years. Why is that? is it so nobody can point a finger and say "that doesnt look like xxxxx"?
The first part of that is just plain wrong, but anyway, the reason I tend not to copy pictures is nothing to do with fear. These days I don't really think of copying pics as a particularly special skill, there's loads of people out there who could accurately re-produce photos. Personally I just find it more interesting to try and incorporate my own ideas. That doesn't mean I think my own work is anything amazing, but at least I had to put some effort in. Generally around 90% of my C64 time is spent trying out ideas, 10% actually building the final pic.
"you tell me, you are the ones who have been practising since the 90's"
Personally I started pixelling around 1985, when I was 7.
"edit: and i think you vastly overestimate photoshops ability to wire to MC mode. it's still turns out a pile of dotted bollcks in 2010. just like it used to."
I do kind of agree with this though, whilst converters can do a decent job, there's a bit of a myth that seems to go round that you can produce an almost unrecognisable convert. Unless there's some secret super cool converting tool out there that I've never seen, it's just not true...
btw...I do think this picture is nicely pixelled, shame your ego seems to think you're beyond anything other than worship. |
User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 28 September 2010
| This is more the spirit dudes... |
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 28 September 2010
Deekay: agree! WE DEMAND 2010 STE'86 STUFF!
:)
(not joking) |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 28 September 2010
Goddamnit, stop the pissing match! 8) *anything* released for c64 in 2010 is cool, and I don't care if it's from a superoldschool Compunet guy or some relative newbie like Archmage or that Atari dude from the Silesia compo! ;-D
Just one thing about Photoshop: "and i think you vastly overestimate photoshops ability to wire to MC mode. it's still turns out a pile of dotted bollcks in 2010. just like it used to."
Nonsense. It just depends on the tools you use... But even in Photoshop you can achieve a really quite pixelled-looking style rather easily, just use patternfill and selfmade checkerboards! |
User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 28 September 2010
I think you all are really qute... god damn it... it is a matter of taste... both these are good work. Personally I do not like the colors in the one posted here as it looks really strange to have so much burnout and then still so long color ranges instead of contrast in a way. And it looks like alot of other images did look too. Both are good, but I can really say that it is two totally different styles and why even try to compare them... it is Mel Gibson and Danny Glover, it nails them perfectly. The carefully painted not converted look in their skin and all, really top quality... while the color image is a bit like blured in their faces while their hair has very sharp details and so on... strange...
Now it is soon time for X2010 - love all |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 28 September 2010
"it seems nobody with the exception of Morpheus has done anything "identifiable" for over 15 years"
it seems you take a piss on everything done in 15 years... |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 28 September 2010
| woha, when did this become a pissing contest? forum thread anyone? |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
| oh i will do Carrion. i will do. never let it be said i am sheep blindly following the "in crowd" |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
LOL i think we'll have to disagree that swirly rainbow patterns and surreal colours defines creativity mate
edit: and i think you vastly overestimate photoshops ability to wire to MC mode. it's still turns out a pile of dotted bollcks in 2010. just like it used to. |
User Comment
Submitted by Sander on 28 September 2010
Quote:it seems nobody with the exception of Morpheus has done anything "identifiable" for over 15 years. Why is that? is it so nobody can point a finger and say "that doesnt look like xxxxx"? you tell me, you are the ones who have been practising since the 90's
and that was NOT meant as a dig at Sander it was an observation of the trend on this scene.
Glad it's not :) If you check my portraits/pictures, you can usually find a source image in the comments/trivia. So guess that point is not valid.
And there have been way more portraits (of known sources) throughout the years (e.g. this or this... etc. |
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 28 September 2010
Personally I think LW2 face reproduction is really good, just I'd like the pic to have more "juice" in overall to get over 7 pts. from me. Also the guy on the left has white skin, right, but doesn't really look much whiter than the other, which is black. ;)
Looking forward for your new work man!
corrected the dates on previous example :>
|
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
why is that better exactly? its a nice pic but it has surreal colours and no way of knowing if it looks anything like who its of.
it seems nobody with the exception of Morpheus has done anything "identifiable" for over 15 years. Why is that? is it so nobody can point a finger and say "that doesnt look like xxxxx"? you tell me, you are the ones who have been practising since the 90's
and that was NOT meant as a dig at Sander it was an observation of the trend on this scene. |
User Comment
Submitted by Sander on 28 September 2010
Indeed, what Stainless said.
That picture was even done in 1998 - and you can see how lost i was on details, where STE's picture has awesome (matching) details.
@Booker, thanks though :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 28 September 2010
| Well, nice and colorful but porportionally totally on lsd. |
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 28 September 2010
September 1989 is NOT from the 80s! :D It's basically 90s! Man :D
1998 -  this a a 90s jawdropper :)
There side by side:
How's now? ;-) |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 28 September 2010
Hey no arguing about this one. It's an instant classic. Most portrais dont even come close. This really looks like gibson & glover.
And let's not go comparing nufli with koala pictures. |
User Comment
Submitted by Sander on 28 September 2010
| Imho it is a jaw dropper - especially for being from the 80ties. A lot of people have done/tried portraits throughout the years, but rarely matching this well. That is exceptional, unfortunately even in 2010. |
User Comment
Submitted by Conrad on 28 September 2010
Carrion's a nice guy in person actually. But anyway, I'm not here to judge people regarding CSDB votes. :)
I like the picture very much, but with all do respect, I wouldn't say it is a jaw-dropper in today's scene. Things have progressed since 1989, a time when we didn't have NU-FLI ;) |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
| just some wanker who likes to downvote so artwork doesnt get higher votes than them i suppose. |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 28 September 2010
ahh no :) under no circumstances would anyone get a week to do a loader :) 8-10 hours for a loader was the norm for everyone. most companies would send you the comission one day and want it back the next day or the day after that. besides which at £100-200 per screen 8-10 hours was about £10-20 an hour which for 1987ish was good going. if you took a week it wouldnt be worth doing and you wouldnt have got any work if you quoted that time frame anyway :)
if i may say so, the current artists view this stuff with a totally different mindset to what we did. you all seem to view it as subjective art, whereas we viewed it in the main as a design job, to be time budgeted and deadlined appropriately. |
User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 27 September 2010
| ohhh man... it is really good... were the deadlines or budget really that hard back in the days too... I would like to think that one get a title screen and one could work on that for a whole week or two... I guess there were not that many jobs per week even then per artist... I am so sad to hear that the budgets were that tight back then... I can not do this one in ten hour, but I could do it better in a weeks time in a way... sad that it were so preassured even then... really sad to hear that... and specially when I have read that the work were not highly rewarded in cash also... just sad from getting to know that... |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 27 September 2010
| average time was 10 hours "back in the day" this may have taken a little more because it was developed over a week as i recall for a PCW show. |
User Comment
Submitted by pvcf on 27 September 2010
| wooooow! awesome! see this the first time and lit looks great! excellent work! did you know how long you have needed back in time for this? |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 19 July 2010
| LOL! 6 from Carrion. fcking priceless |
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 19 July 2010
My final non commercial screen on the 64. coming 2 years almost to the day after my previous non commercial pic which was Lethal Weapon in Oct '87. I was told Hotline, Ikari and Talent had this made up as t-shirts and wore them at the big trade show that October.
even if i do say so myself its a great pic to bow out of the scene on :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 20 April 2007
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 20 April 2007
| Looks awesome for a piece from '87 |
User Comment
Submitted by Total Chaos on 14 December 2006
OUCH! (I just hurt my jaw when it dropped to my desk)
A-W-E-S-O-M-E-! |
|
|
|
 | Search CSDb |
|
| Navigate | |
|
| Detailed Info | |
|
| Fun Stuff | |
· Goofs
· Hidden Parts
· Trivia
|
|
| Forum | |
|
| Support CSDb | |
|
 |  |
|
9.2/10 (29 votes) 