|
| |
|
I’ve Got My Eyes on You Post-Oldskool Experimentalists [2006] |
AKA :
insert braille code here
Credits :
Download :
Look for downloads on external sites:
Pokefinder.org
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 13 November 2008
For some reason I always made the connection between this image and this
 |
User Comment
Submitted by Frantic on 14 December 2007
User Comment
Submitted by Puterman on 14 December 2007
(Sorry, seems I'm a few days late, but who cares.)
I just love it when people try to ignore the fact that releasing stuff for the C64 is still a lot about impressing people. It's about gaining status in a community. Now, there's also other stuff, like the things that people like to talk about: the love of the platform, creative energy, whatever. Still, if you claim that you're completely uninterested in the response, don't release at all, just go with your creative energy, your love of the platform, the exploration of your ideas. (And just for the record, yes, I realize that there are others reasons why you might want to release stuff as well. Including creating a discussion.) |
User Comment
Submitted by Dane on 12 December 2007
| Entertaining read! Nothing has changed where my love for you is concerned, Lars. I still want to marry. |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 10 December 2007
Shut up, all of you! 8) This is getting silly!
Go watch the Video TBL referenced when the bitchwar about their PSP-Demo "Suicide Barbie" went overboard on pouet:
http://mirror.support.nl/pub/tbl/movies/pollinate.mov
P.S: Nice one, Lars! ;-) Never knew you were a scheming bastard! >:-) |
User Comment
Submitted by Sixx on 10 December 2007
| Is this the new sub forum i've heard so much about? |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 9 December 2007
| re:Tdj: Ok, when you put it that way I don't have problem with it. |
User Comment
Submitted by cadaver on 9 December 2007
| Hmm, I never understood this "why not make stuff on PC then" argument, for of course it's an objective truth that C64 paletted pictures at 160x200 look better than anything else, including truecolor graphics :) |
User Comment
Submitted by null on 9 December 2007
Quote:We are over 30 nowadays (with few exceptions ;-), and we should start to behave responsibly ;-)
Thanks for remembering me ;_)
btw, I don't mind wired graphics.. hell, in some cases it can add something to the style of a demo... if it's wired properly ( Industrial Revolution was a step towards the right direction, but unfortunately also full of errors ) |
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 9 December 2007
| Ed: you forgot about the opened outlines :) |
User Comment
Submitted by saehn on 9 December 2007
"I like something for what it is, not for how it was made."
It seems like there are quite a few people with that perspective. If that's what you believe, then that's fine. However, if that's really the case---if process isn't important and results are all that matters---then I have to ask:
Why are we bothering to produce work on a machine that has severely limited capabilities? Why not just do PC work? We'd get much better results. Modern computers can do everything that a C64 can and then some.
I believe we do care about process... I think that we should respect our processes and be open with them, for the integrity of the scene. |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 9 December 2007
This look like the "bitching topic". She (that is, the part of the image-sign that makes me think of a girl), has a hard expression. It was apparent the first I first time saw the image.
The second time I saw it, and by now the third, or even tenth time I watch it and with recent broadening of the horizon, I notice how big the differences between the original and this version really is. The subtle androgynous look is replaced by a much harder (perhaps due to the stronger contrast in this version) look. Here it seem the figure almost look rough, as a result of the hard and modern city/industrial setting she is placed infront of. But yet there is something that make the woman look avoiding and cunning.
I think there is a fun play here with the avoiding looks (the ruling class), and the beauty (still she is rough) common to commercial art work and also models. (a product,
almost even industrially grown. As a part of a product-system, a industry. )
Could we not get a gender reading on this one instead? Try to broaden the discussion rather than getting stuck in some copy thing. There are deeper finds to be made or interpreted here...
Anyways. I still see no dramatic changes in the votes...
[edited a lot of times. sorry.. blurry s*** going down]
|
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
| Conrad: A lot of the posts here are more about general principles and not so much "against" Mirage :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
"depends who the victim is that people are debating against, which in that case is Mirage."
and what ppl are ok to debate against, and what arent? |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
*sings*
love is in the hair |
User Comment
Submitted by Conrad on 9 December 2007
@Deev: Well, i guess reading stuff like this would maybe cheer you up at a hard day's work for that matter. :) depends who the victim is that people are debating against, which in that case is Mirage.
Burglar's post however is more pleasant. |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 9 December 2007
@Burglar: There is a hairless interpretation of this image, seen it yet? :P
|
User Comment
Submitted by Burglar on 9 December 2007
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 9 December 2007
| I don't think it is arguing, just debate, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that - especially when it keeps me entertained at work! :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
TDJ: I dunno about that...it would certainly have made the joke more obvious to everyone...which in my humble view would have made it a better joke :)
[16:04] <yago> vanjau: but dont you think mirage will be pissed with all this accusations ?
[16:04] <vanjau> yago: I think he's having a good laugh :) at least I hope so |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
"get the fuck over it. have you no life ?"
hello? anyone forcing you to read this? |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
| why is arguing ridiculous ? A scene with uniformised opinions is ridiculous. |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 9 December 2007
| get the fuck over it. have you no life ? |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
| it's up to mirage to reveal what he wanted to express with the no copy text. everything else is speculation. |
User Comment
Submitted by Conrad on 9 December 2007
Bloody hell fire!
I haven't actually viewed this release page until 3 hours ago, and now the amount of argumentive comments have almost doubled!! Come on, this is getting ridiculous now. |
User Comment
Submitted by TDJ on 9 December 2007
Vanja, in this case posting or including the original would defeat the purpose, like I already said.
Also, this, all this, this discussion? Welcome to Mirage's playground. |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
"Apart from the interest in how somebody does his work (which I get), would you really find a picture less beautiful if you knew parts of it were based on a photograph?"
nice try, but that questions sounds correctly like this: do you find one's skill less, when finding out he is copying? |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 9 December 2007
| Vanja, ok, I'm not interested in some big arguement either, it's simply my opinion that reference photos, as well as the styles and compositions of other artists, can equally be used to influence the final outcome of a release and if you're going to post one, you should also post the other. Personally I don't think we should have to post either :) I'll leave it there! (damnit, now I'll have to do some work) |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 9 December 2007
How to draw a line?
Trial and error I´d say. Isn't that what it was all about in the first place?
go swirl go... |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
| Deev: there is a difference between copying a picture 1:1, using a direct reference photo and being influenced by other artists. If you don't see that difference, *shrug*, I'm not going to spend forever arguing about semantics with you. |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
Quote:Vanja, same question, different form: do you like this picture less now that you know it's based on a photograph?
To me it doesn't matter. I like something for what it is, not for how it was made.
If it doesn't matter; then where is the danger in posting the original/reference material? Because artists are worried that some people will give them a 7 instead of a 9? Is this what it is all about you think, votes? Are people withholding information to get better votes?
It doesn't matter what I think of the picture, it is a matter of honesty. |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 9 December 2007
| Vanja, ok, but my question is still where do you draw the line? If you're posting all references, then shouldn't influences also be posted? For my picture Shiver for example (Shiver) I used this picture as a source for the girl's face http://lithiumpicnic.deviantart.com/art/darker-magic-25251744 but the style was also influenced by other sources, as I'm sure is the case for many completely no copy pictures. I don't see why one form of reference should be shown, yet others stay hidden. |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 9 December 2007
| @Vodka: It seems the freeze button does not work on Mirage pictures as the screen goes blank in Action Replay... :) |
User Comment
Submitted by TDJ on 9 December 2007
Vanja, same question, different form: do you like this picture less now that you know it's based on a photograph?
To me it doesn't matter. I like something for what it is, not for how it was made. |
User Comment
Submitted by VoDKa on 9 December 2007
| Freez the picure & change backgroundcolour and I bet you will see a URL to the original picture in the white area. ;-) Now THAT would be the ultimate hoax of the year. |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
TDJ: that's just it though isn't it, we don't know if we're looking at a picture where the artist has used elements from other pictures to create something new or if we are looking at a 1:1 copy or if we are looking at a 100% original piece of work. If we know what the original/reference material was like, we are in a better position to judge the work; or understand the joke. It's simply more honest to provide the viewing public with whatever reference material you used.
Deev: I didn't say anything about pictures where reference material has been used being less worthy, I just think it is more honest to let people see what reference material you used. That way you can make an informed judgement about the work and the picture instead of praising something based on false assumptions. |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 9 December 2007
| If someone has copied someone elses picture 100% then I think they should state that on the release, I don't agree, however, that *all* referenced material used to make an original picture should be posted. I use references for some of my work and I'm always honest about that (often mentioning it in the comments), but if I've used these refences to create my own original piece then I don't see that piece as any less worthy than something that is 100% no copy. If someone creates a piece with no direct photo references, but that is influenced by the style of some outside work (and everyone has influences), should that influencing work also be posted? Where do you draw the line? It just comes back to the old statement that nothing is truly new. |
User Comment
Submitted by TDJ on 9 December 2007
Vanja, like I said in a deleted part of my previous comment: Lars including, or even mentioning, the original would defeat the purpose of the message he was trying to relay.
Apart from the interest in how somebody does his work (which I get), would you really find a picture less beautiful if you knew parts of it were based on a photograph? |
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 9 December 2007
Ok I have a poem I would like to read before you continue this cycle:
White line fever, takes me high
Another city, another lie
Another town, another face
Another woman to take your place
Catch the bullet, ride the storm
Drive me crazy 'till the dawn
Like an eagle flying high
Look for freedom in the sky
Rolling thunder, moving on
Another time, another song
Another room, another night
Another dream, another fight
Keep on moving down the line
Gipsy woman on my mind
Ask no questions, tell no lies
See the answers in my eyes
|
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
| TDJ: at least if people post the original/reference material, the public gets a chance to see what has been changed from the original; is the C64 artist responsible for the composition or is it a 1:1 copy, is the C64 artist responsible for the colour choices or is it a 1:1 copy, are we really just looking at the dithering skills of the C64 artist, or did he/she add something to the picture besides making a c64 copy? What did the artist do to make it their own picture? I for one would like to be able to see stuff like that, and I find it more interesting than looking at workstages, really. |
User Comment
Submitted by TDJ on 9 December 2007
Roman, relax, only the first paragraph was directed towards you in special, the other two were more meant in general.
What I meant with 'grow up' is this very old-fashioned stance that everything you do should be your own. Reminds me of the underground hip-hop scene I used to be part of, if a rapper didn't use his own lyrics he was considered lame (so to speak). Ofcourse most rappers couldn't write a decent bar if their lives depended on it but hey, at least it was their own, right?
Gimme something that looks fucking fantastic but is not 100% somebody's own to a lame 'original/no copy' picture anyday.
ps: I realize that some people here don't care if something is original as long as it's stated. I don't even care for that. I loved "Torn" by Nathalie Imbruglia when I thought it was her own, I still loved it when I found out it was a cover ;) |
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ on 9 December 2007
Quote:Groepaz, most ppl indeed couldnt, but a c64 graphician could.
i can't agree with that. there are more than enough examples around where so called "c64 graphicians" produced lame and ugly converted pictures. ofcourse if in doubt, you can always pretend its art. or something. <3 |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
Oswald: If you re-read my comments in both places, I did not scream ZOMG SCANDAL at Leon either, I simply asked that in future he would provide the original picture as well the next time he releases a copy; as a principle I would like to see *everyone* post any reference material they used when creating a picture. In fact, from my comment to Mirage's picture: Quote:I would have liked it better if he did that and at the same time posted the original picture under production info though (something I wish more people would do in general)
If you think I am out to get Leon, why don't you take a look at the votes he is giving my work and compare it with the votes I am giving his work, sir, and you'll see who is out to get who here. Or is me giving his pictures 7 and 6 somehow more unfair than him giving everything I release 1 by default? Come on.
My point was that Mirage's "no copy" was possibly meant as a joke, a bad joke maybe but still, because I can't really see any other reason why he'd want to pretend having made that pic without reference. I've seen his paper art, I've seen the stuff he can do without reference, so I chose to believe this "no copy" sign was meant as a joke; if that makes me an evil person and terribly unfair towards Leon, so be it. I'm not out to get anyone though, no matter what you think. |
User Comment
Submitted by Twoflower on 9 December 2007
| Yes, ofcourse, sources should always be stated. |
User Comment
Submitted by ptoing on 9 December 2007
| It's less about using other peoples images than making other people believe you did it yourself, hence stating of sources would be nice. But whatever, most of you do not care anyway. |
User Comment
Submitted by Twoflower on 9 December 2007
| Paraphrases, copies and variations of artwork have always been a part of art, and should keep beeing that. Personally, I see copyright as a violation of expression. Unless it's a question of outright plagiation for the sake of earning money, using other peoples images are just fine. By doing an interpretation of the other image makes it 1) your image 2) a piece of art, if that was your intention - it might just be a more or less nice image/interpretation. And by the way, Copyright Does Not Exist. |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 9 December 2007
TDJ. Why don't you read http://www.whatiscopyright.org/ instead of giving naive rhethoric questions that I would *never* expect to come from your direction?
Did I say anything about quality of this pic?
And what is that last comment about growing up? Hey Marco? The feared Dark Judge. Are you there? |
User Comment
Submitted by leonofsgr on 9 December 2007
User Comment
Submitted by TDJ on 9 December 2007
So Roman, what would you like. The name & address of the model? Maybe the agency the photographer works for?
Disregarding the message for a moment, this is a fucking great picture that almost nobody else could have done. Why don't you all just enjoy that at least, and STFU? Hmmm?
And yes, I would have felt the same even if Mirage wasn't my friend and team-member. It's time to grow up boys. |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 9 December 2007
The fact that demoscene roots in illegal cracking scene doesn't mean that we should ignore the copyrights and not giving credit where credit is due when producing our art. It really doesn't matter what was the message of this pic. The credits should be as complete as possible.
Giving propper credits should be priority when creating art for c64 nowadays. Especially if we ever want to achieve respect and avoid finding ourselves in unhappy situations like when some idiot r'n'b producer or anyone else steals from one of the sceners without even thinking about giving credits and the consequences.
We are over 30 nowadays (with few exceptions ;-), and we should start to behave responsibly ;-) |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
| Groepaz, most ppl indeed couldnt, but a c64 graphician could . |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 9 December 2007
OMG! when it comes to leon vanja writes: "Hmm, copying pictures from fairly unknown dA artists and trying to pass them off as your own work...interesting. Next time why don't you provide a link to the original when you release your picture, sir?"
when its Mirage wiring then it goes like : "It is tempting to shout "zomg scandal", but Mirage is one of the better artists in the C64 scene, and blabla" |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 9 December 2007
| OMG! Not only did Mirage copy the girl, he shamelessly stole the composition/layout and the picture's title from someone else too! Look what I found! |
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ on 9 December 2007
| the cowboy is a conversion, someone on irc mentioned it a while ago, i forgot. nor do i care :) even WITH conversion tools, most people are unable to create such stuff =P i should know (the damned message before the picture makes the point i hope) |
User Comment
Submitted by ptoing on 8 December 2007
So Motion, please explain to me the clever message Mirage is trying to send here.
Is the message that copying is bad? And so he copies/converts a picture without even giving the source, leaving people thinking he did it himself? Extremely deep I have to say.
And about the AKA, as I said before I am 100% sure that it is just a silly ref to my picture Alte Schule where I used Braille for the signature.
I for my part would like to see the sources for other stuff as well, like the Ms Pacman picture which I am 100% sure is a copy/convert job as well as far as the cowboy goes. This stuff is NOT hard if you are a bit better with the tools you are using. |
User Comment
Submitted by Motion on 8 December 2007
Note the Title and 'AKA' for this entry, 'The No Copy' and the *hidden* 'Angry' text in the image. Do you understand now?
A fantastic and provocative piece from the pixel pimp... |
User Comment
Submitted by Radiant on 8 December 2007
Wow, that was far-fetched.
I tend to view pictures as pieces of craft, not as forum posts. A common discourse is needed in order to make oneself understood, and verbal communication is simply superior in that aspect. Understanding a conversation handled through pictures requires a lot more (<- keyword) guesswork and personal knowledge about the participants.
"Subtle" means "easily missed" or "hard to define", by the way and is thus by definition not perceived by a significant number of people. Subtlety is not the way to go when trying to make yourself understood; however it can be used to great effect when trolling, as demonstrated here. Congrats on the drama, hope it was worthwhile. |
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 8 December 2007
A sarcastic statement by Mirage + wrong interpretation = endless comment bashing on CSDb.
|
User Comment
Submitted by yago on 8 December 2007
On the left, there is a dim corner, with a "no copy" tag. Then comes a stylish beauty, which is a 'bove the letter "ngry".
This sums up the comments on this page.
(There is another part in the right part of the picture..)
If the lady would be the only thing here, i would be on the "onoes!wiring!!" front.
But the lady was a showcase for hairdressers, maybe mirage's girlfriend got that haircut, too????
And, sorry, imho its the authors right to not show any workingstages or give interpretation-hints.
(OTOH, it might be that wiring killed amiga,pc gfx-scenes, but c64 rules over them anyway)
|
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 8 December 2007
| scout, what makes you think that the rest is not taken from other pictures ? :) |
User Comment
Submitted by leonofsgr on 8 December 2007
User Comment
Submitted by Scout on 8 December 2007
What a load of useless nagging.
Okay, he wired a picture. But he used it as a BASE. If you look at the dithering and composition you definitely can see a real craftsman was at work here. |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 8 December 2007
I never took the "no copy" statement literally, especially coupled with the title and the fact that style-wise this picture fits in with the other work Mirage did over the same period which also featured copied girl pics.
Edit: though I suppose it's a decent point that perhaps something more obvious could've been chosen as it's clear lots of people didn't see it that way. |
User Comment
Submitted by ptoing on 8 December 2007
I think the "insert Braille code here" thing is a reference to my picture Alte Schule
I do not care wether Mirage wants to be a jester or whatever, but as you said in this case he could have chosen something obvious if he wanted to drive home a point about the scene. |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 8 December 2007
| Personally I would like to believe that Mirage has taken on the role of the jester here, and that the "no copy" on a copy is a joke and a comment on the past, current, and probably future state of the scene, where copies are presented as (or assumed to be) original pieces of work all the time, sometimes even with "no copy" slapped in a corner somewhere. I would have liked it better if he did that and at the same time posted the original picture under production info though (something I wish more people would do in general), or picked a more obvious copy (ie. the Mona Lisa). It is tempting to shout "zomg scandal", but Mirage is one of the better artists in the C64 scene, and he certainly doesn't *need* to copy anything. Look at the title of the piece, look at the context, and think twice. Insert Braille code here? Time to open your eyes perhaps? |
User Comment
Submitted by Style on 8 December 2007
oh man, its wired??? disappointing.
props to all those guys that are willing to remain true and draw their own stuff, even if it aint 'state of the art'. |
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 8 December 2007
| Actually, the opposite, RadiantX. Look beyond the pointing fingers. |
User Comment
Submitted by TDJ on 8 December 2007
| It's funny to see that after all these years people outside of Focus still don't 'get' Lars. |
User Comment
Submitted by Radiant on 8 December 2007
| @Hein: What are you attempting to achieve with that attitude? Making people care less about C64 graphics? |
User Comment
Submitted by Sander on 8 December 2007
| @Oswald: Not really. I was not backing Mirage here. Obviously he copied that part. But i was merely referring to the article by Danny. |
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 8 December 2007
| Tadadadadadadadadada Sanderheinman! Pof, Pow, Klabam.. I think Lars caught some fish today. Good bait, I have to remember it. |
User Comment
Submitted by Radiant on 8 December 2007
Things like these are making me feel like it's no use even trying to improve as a graphician, better just start copying other people's pictures instead, and pass them off as my own. Seems to work pretty well.
It's starting to become like in the Amiga and PC scenes, where everybody knows that a good picture almost certainly is copied, "no copy" or not, so there's no point in even trying to create something original.
Bah.
@saehn: Workstages can, and have frequently been, faked. Workstage faking is what ultimately killed off the Amiga gfx scene. |
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 8 December 2007
| Sander&Hein rushes to the rescue, but the case is obvious... it would be no problem if the "no copy" text wouldnt be there tho. |
User Comment
Submitted by Sander on 8 December 2007
| @Seahn: That writing is a disgrace... Bringing up Rembrandt's nightwatch to justify Playboy-covers.. He's quite clueless. |
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 8 December 2007
| Interesting read, Saehn. I'm sure the words 'no copy' are not a copy, or are they? It would really suck if they are. |
User Comment
Submitted by saehn on 8 December 2007
While I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with wiring or copying (as long as someone is upfront about it), it's definitely not as impressive as creating completely original work. And it's certainly wrong to deceive others about the originality of one's creative work, either implicitly or explicitly.
This is why I believe that we as graphicians should provide production notes and as many workstages as possible, even for non-compo pics. Wiring helped to kill the PC graphics scene, in my opinion.
http://www.kameli.net/nocopy/disint.htm |
User Comment
Submitted by ptoing on 8 December 2007
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 25 November 2006
Very nice picture, although i gotta say that the hair looks neat, but not as clean as in some other Mirage-pics. You can definately spot some color-conversion artefacts here and there. Love the use of the very dark grey (alternating brown/blue lines), does Timanthes support/emulate this PAL-anomaly or did you add that manually, Lars?
And yeah, the grey spot on the chin is a bit irritating. Kickass nose, as always in Mirage-pictures though (first one i remember was in the Wonderland Intro! ;-) |
User Comment
Submitted by Mirage on 26 September 2006
@zyron: Trans*Form
Angry... not igry... i kept a part of that word hidden for a different reason though... nice try, though :)
@Clarence:
(just talking about the technical stuff now, thanks for the comments about the artistical stuff)
FLIGraph 2.2 from ASP/black mail saves files with opcodes to be executed after the $d011 change, timanthes exports these opcode bytes aswell to be compatible with that and there is only a limited amount of opcodes to pick from to colour those left 3 chars... I'm happy with those unstable opcodes unless somebody starts to complain my pictures are crashing :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Valsary on 26 September 2006
| OMFG! This one is really incredible, excellent design and ...those hairs :) |
User Comment
Submitted by LordNikon on 24 September 2006
| "perfect anatomy" ... well not really, take a look at the right bottom of the face ... but overall nice pic |
User Comment
Submitted by comankh on 24 September 2006
| 10! looks like my girlfriend, i guess i'm not objective lol \m/ |
User Comment
Submitted by HCL on 24 September 2006
| Purple lips again(!).. guess i'd better get used to it :/. |
User Comment
Submitted by Skate on 22 September 2006
User Comment
Submitted by leonofsgr on 22 September 2006
| Perfect anatomy, emotional face, charming eyes, lips that stimulate you for a kiss... I believe: sweet game is over, you won! ;_) |
User Comment
Submitted by Dane on 22 September 2006
| Very Aeon Flux! A master at work, of course. Needless to say, this is what we should aspire to. |
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 22 September 2006
What is the text saying? Can't be Angry or Hungry, the letter before the G looks like an I. The Y is mirrored.
IGRY? (Painfully embarrassed for or uncomfortable about someone else's incredibly poor social behavior, or descriptive of such poor social behavior.) |
User Comment
Submitted by Bizzmo on 22 September 2006
| So many quality pics lately... the rest of us might just as well give up! |
User Comment
Submitted by Matt on 22 September 2006
| absolutely b-r-i-l-l-i-a-n-t! |
User Comment
Submitted by Clarence on 22 September 2006
Superb work again! Your latest works in FLI makes you the king of this format. :) The details and composition are fantastic. Well chosen colours and good anatomy of the face. The fancy background (without traingles this time) is very nice. ;)
Technically, I like that you master the plain FLI format to it's limits. You always use the first 3 'colourless' char columns of the fli mode to complement the picture (this is a feature in Timanthes?), besides boldly using the lax #imm opcode may cause the fli routine to hang on some instable c64s to this command. :)
ps: what's the complete text behind the head Hungry or more likely Angry...?
|
User Comment
Submitted by Tch on 22 September 2006
A true masterpiece! 8D
Absolutely state of the art!! |
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 22 September 2006
User Comment
Submitted by Steppe on 22 September 2006
| The colouring of the lips, the hair, and check out these strayed blue and purple pixels in the cheeks! Man, that rocks! |
User Comment
Submitted by Z-Mat on 22 September 2006
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 22 September 2006
| Cool. Esp. clothing. I also like the touches of modern stuff in the background. The left eye is almost as odd as that particular Pegasus picture. |
User Comment
Submitted by Slator on 22 September 2006
A True masterpiece of C64 pixel arts. I would rate it an 11 if it was possible.
Great picture! |
User Comment
Submitted by Richard on 22 September 2006
User Comment
Submitted by Jammer on 22 September 2006
hey, i've noticed the same effect which was in hein's umbrella pic. those transitions between colours without dithering, how could this be possible in plain fli or mc :O:O:O
crap, it's opera viewer which smooths doubled picture :| |
User Comment
Submitted by Motion on 22 September 2006
An exciting image and very in your face! The hair is magnificent. Lovely subject, too. Excellent as ever, but hey, it is MIRAGE! Oh, and the chin is just fine... :)
|
User Comment
Submitted by Jammer on 22 September 2006
| simply impressed :O timanthes helps with drawing fonts, i guess :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 22 September 2006
| very nicely done, and yes, Mirage is definately king of c64 hair pixelling! |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 22 September 2006
| I don't recall if I have ever seen more state-of-the-art hair in C64 graphics (except of previous Mirage's pic). It looks so fresh and almost incomplicated, yet it's crafted with first class skill and grace of the contemporary computer illustration techniques. |
User Comment
Submitted by Burglar on 22 September 2006
| I can do nothing else but give this a 10. despite her left chin, the grey isnt finished properly. but it fades with all the rest this pic has to offer. well done lars! |
User Comment
Submitted by jailbird on 22 September 2006
Monsieur Mirage, this is teh bestest!
And who the fuck cares if it's a copy or not when it's beautiful! \:D/
PS: The opened outline is able to capture something of our secret thoughts and its permutative behaviour. We can recognize an item here and there but the line always glides further with unlimited combination of associations. Curves of the consiousness, curves of the subconcious. + I'd definitely have this on my wall |
User Comment
Submitted by Style on 22 September 2006
yup, I agree its awesome, but she looks like she's taken a right cross to the jaw :)
The hair is magic.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Djinn on 22 September 2006
| i like the shades used in the hair very much, but the left part of her jaw look all messed up. nice composition. |
User Comment
Submitted by Jazzcat on 22 September 2006
Love the shading/light effect in the hair. Looks awesome and reminds me of some Japanese comics I've read (yes, I can read Japanese).
Another magical invention by Mirage! _o/
|
User Comment
Submitted by Intensity on 22 September 2006
User Comment
Submitted by leonofsgr on 22 September 2006
|
|
|
 | Search CSDb |
|
| Navigate | |
|
| Detailed Info | |
|
| Fun Stuff | |
· Goofs
· Hidden Parts
· Trivia
|
|
| Forum | |
|
| Support CSDb | |
|
 |  |
|
