Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
  You are not logged in 
Gollum   [2010]

Gollum Released by :
SIT

Release Date :
3 October 2010

Type :
C64 Graphics  (MultiColor)

Released At :
X'2010

Achievements :
C64 Graphics Competition at X'2010 :  #9

User rating:*********_  9.4/10 (46 votes)   See votestatistics
*********_  9.4/10 (20 votes) - Public votes only.

Credits :
Graphics .... SIT

Download :
http://csdb.dk/getinternalfile.php/92137/gollum.prg (downloads: 577)
http://csdb.dk/getinternalfile.php/92374/Gollum_stages_SIT.jpg (downloads: 309)
http://csdb.dk/getinternalfile.php/92378/Gollum_Stages.gif (downloads: 246)

Look for downloads on external sites:
 Pokefinder.org


User Comment
Submitted by Yogibear on 10 January 2014
Ultra cool!
User Comment
Submitted by Shine on 10 January 2014
WOW ... simply inapprehensible!!! ;) 11/10
User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 29 October 2010
OMP: Hey hey... that is the spirit!

DeeKay: ok... You know what?... That was totally overdone in a wrong way.

S.I.T : You are insane good at this, thanx for the image!
User Comment
Submitted by Ole Marius on 29 October 2010
Love it! Fantastic work. Can't believe all the negative energy on here.

Screw that - screw all the bitterness and deconstructive criticism.
User Comment
Submitted by SIDWAVE on 14 October 2010
So many comments, just to say "I like it!" ?

:)

Its for sure not wired, so all those negative comments on SIT doing a 'copy' picture, are lame..
User Comment
Submitted by Sledge on 14 October 2010
It's a great picture, and one can see the time and effort you have spent on it.

The pixels are so smooth and placed so right. This is really good!
User Comment
Submitted by Morpheus on 14 October 2010
I too was amazed when I saw the working stages. Really inspiring!

I'll see if I can get DOKK and Bob Stevenson interested as well. For musicians, what would be the best editor to give them?

And by the way; from the interview I did with SIT a while back: "I was never officially part of any demo team. Instead, I think a lot of my work was borrowed from the Compunet archives. It was an honor when someone was inspired enough to put together a demo using my artwork. I used to get a real buzz out of it. I do remember giving White of The Judges a disk of my bitmaps at one of the computer shows, and him using some of them in his Think Twice 5 demo. I worked on a few C64 demos with various teams, drawing a lot of inspiration from current pop iconography, then got my first real job at Ocean after showing off a recently finished image of Robocop."
User Comment
Submitted by Zyron on 14 October 2010
Please keep the comments on topic, open a forum thread to continue the discussion of different gfx formats.

Love the picture btw! :)
User Comment
Submitted by wacek on 14 October 2010
Couldn't agree more with DK.
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 14 October 2010
PAL:
Quote:

About multicolor mode vs the new modes. In the another beginning demo that we in offence did for X2010 I created all the graphics in multicolor with this in mind: Multicolor is the strongest format there is without trying to be something else, multicolor is only multicolor and it is a platform that really is magical to me. It is instant recognition of the format and platform or canvas if you like, it is the c64 and it is due to this format the c64 were great and also different and has proven to stand the test of time. A good multicolor image is as good now, in five years or even in 20 and far beyond.


Oh god, not that old discussion again!.. Standard mode pictures are awesome and should be (and most certainly are!) well appreciated. But just like true MCol classics that you can watch in 20 years and be amazed, there's just as many pictures in advanced modes for which the same is true! Electric! Valsary! Mirage! Deev! Not true classics and works of art? Most certainly not, that's actually an insult to some great artists!

And the reason why the c64 was great and different was *not* Multicolor bitmap, but rather charmode, Hardwaresprites, SID, Hardware scrolling and Multicolor mode in general - Cause about 95% of all games only use Bitmaps for title screens (if at all!), and it was the games that made the c64 great!

The reason why it has "withstood the test of time" however is the concept of "mind over machine". Only thanks to clever coding people were able to get way way way more out of the machine than was originally thought to be possible, this is the sole reason most of us keep producing for this ancient hardware!
So, by definition, modes like FLI, added spritelayers or even Interlace are the essence of what makes the c64 great and keeps us going - and should thus be appreciated just as much as plain standard stuff!

Standard modes and advanced modes should be seen like high jump and pole vault in the olympics. One is the true classic "mode" that the Greeks (probably) already did 2000 year ago and that is just the plain human without any extras, and the other is using an additional, man-invented and -made device to jump higher than originally humanly possible.

Both are different disciplines and should not be compared, but both have a right to exist and the athletes in each deseve respect nonetheless!
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 14 October 2010
I never thought this picture was wired anyway, but seeing the way you build it up is really interesting. Very different from how I would work where I usually create huge areas of colour with more precise outlines. It's good to see you were inspired to put this together and I hope there'll be more in the future!
User Comment
Submitted by Joe on 13 October 2010
The grid is useful, no doubt about that.
Many artists doing large murals etc have used the same. In recent times, Chuck Close and so on.
Part from a machine enlarging the image or keeping it at a certain distance to objects of depiction,
according to David Hockney through a lens around 1400 onward to the modernism and then with certain turns,
making the change in depicting, the man-made xerox method going side-by side with handicraft.

I guess in this case and such is my own experiences that it is possible with a proper art-education of noting negative spaces, light,
shape, form, proportion and depicting it from hand to eye-eye and back.

Know that, done that, been there :)
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 13 October 2010
It is always interesting to see how others convert. I’ve always used the grid method. With what appears to be lots of free hand big movements, SIT’s approach is interesting to say the least. I tend to break objects / an object into areas, or shapes. I tend to approach the shapes that I will know will work most. Towards the end of a picture, it becomes an up hill struggle, with much energy required to pixel the less desirable parts. Then there’s the awkward bits, that cannot be pixeled, until the shapes either side exist. Then there’s the context in which older pixels appear against the new, as the picture progresses.
User Comment
Submitted by Joe on 13 October 2010
Ah! It is nice to see those work in progress stages. This would probably make the less experienced enlightened.
For short: There is no short-turns only hard labour.
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 13 October 2010
User Comment
Submitted by Reyn on 13 October 2010
Amazing....... Also the gifs show what craftmanship is. And also great to see this name again after so many years...
User Comment
Submitted by cba on 13 October 2010
During the compo

User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 12 October 2010
FANTASTIC!
User Comment
Submitted by SIT on 12 October 2010
o.k. ive added (multiple times sorry) various versions of the wip file.

Bottom .gif File show the stages as an animation.

(how do I display this in the PAge like the booker comparison below ??). sorry bout the noobness :P
User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 12 October 2010
Hello SIT!

Your image is splendid, just leave it at that as it is true c64 magic all over the place in the image. There will always be these kind of arguments on this forum, I would urge you to just do your images the way you know how to do them proper. I for one really enjoyed this at the party and now some weeks later I enjoy it even more.

About multicolor mode vs the new modes. In the another beginning demo that we in offence did for X2010 I created all the graphics in multicolor with this in mind: Multicolor is the strongest format there is without trying to be something else, multicolor is only multicolor and it is a platform that really is magical to me. It is instant recognition of the format and platform or canvas if you like, it is the c64 and it is due to this format the c64 were great and also different and has proven to stand the test of time. A good multicolor image is as good now, in five years or even in 20 and far beyond.

With the another beginning demo I landed on doing all stuff in multicolor and I am so proud of that because I really think the graphics in that demo prove my point, I am at least very happy with them and think of them as the better ones I have done and even have seen(do not kill me for this!), even the small errors here and there...

I am 100% that you are better than me, and your image right here proves that, it is a shame that everyone do not see the gold you did.

Keep the flow and do more, I find it very inspiering.
User Comment
Submitted by Conrad on 12 October 2010
Hello SIT! :) Yes the W.I.P. stages would help spill the beans, though I would upload it just a file link. Click "Update" button at the bottom of this release and there will be a file upload option there.
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 12 October 2010
Quoting SIT
I was only ever used to using the standard 320x200 screens.
By all means, please stick with it. It's the only true gfx mode for the c64.
User Comment
Submitted by SIT on 12 October 2010
Hi Guys, I just wanted to clear up a few things about the Gollum Pic.

- Firstly a massive thanks to everyone who voted for me in the comp I really appreciate it.

-@ste86 - Hi Ste - btw a big fan of yours mate. This took WAAAAY longer than 10 hours I was actually really pushing myself to get this image perfect(looking at the image in a refelction etc. (basically the same techniques I used when I produced the Swartzenegger likeness etc. I did not pixel fix this.

- I have a W.I.P. stages bitmap that I want to upload to prove to you that this wasn't processed.

-Again I am really Honoured that people have the time to have an opinion about my work. My heritage is making a lot of licenced games and getting likenesses is something that I've been aiming to do in various formats on various machines for many years. I will dig out some other portraits I did for Batman Returns I did on the Mega C.D. (a game I worked on in the states with Chris Shrigley of 'Bounder' Fame.

(btw cant seem to find the upload Picture button) -If someone can show me where this is I would love to show the W.I.P. piccy.

-I am currently thinking about making one of the Larger rez Images but I'm still unsure of what the newer screen modes/res restrictions are. If someone has a doc that points me to these I would be most grateful. I was only ever used to using the standard 320x200 screens.


User Comment
Submitted by DRAX on 10 October 2010
Come on guys... There are certainly alot emotions involved in this discussion... Deekay I am not sure I agree with your statement about the difference between a sid-cover and gfx-copy being judged differently... Personally I don't care that much if it is a cover unless the same artist/composer keeps only producing 1:1-copies with very little personal touch then I start to think - does this guy/girl have a personal touch...
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 10 October 2010
Carrion: A coincidence, really :)
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 10 October 2010
STE'86: Sorry man, I've dropped voting on CSDb. As a sign of respect for you and SIT I'm removing my vote for Gollum, too.....

/edit/ whops I can't. Ok I've put the max.
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 10 October 2010
actually STE has a valid point about Carrion's namevoting on Mirage's Silver Surfer :)
User Comment
Submitted by Frantic on 10 October 2010
Haha... GeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzZZZZZZzzz..
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 10 October 2010
i wasnt going to post this but i find i cannot hold this back...

i find it thoroughly lame that Carrion has downvoted this with a 6 presumably with his usual excuse that "its a copy" while voting 8 on Mirages very average Silver Surfer copy because presumably Mirage is a "hero".

and Booker votes 5 whilst not voting at all on Surfer despite being high profile? have you gone blind and missed it for 3 days? or is Mirage too big a target for you?

guys if you going to be a wanker at least be a consistent one huh?
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 10 October 2010
AMEN!
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 10 October 2010
Ah, again, the... nah, not gonna post the pic again! ;-D

Here's a question for the ppl hell-bent on "not oridjinal art!!!!": Why is it that c64 musicians never get this treatment when they decide to make a c64 version of some real tune? E.g. *everyone* loved Linus' Bowie/Radiohead tunes in Crest Slide Story or EvS regular pop-conversions! I can't remember *anybody* saying stuff like "nicely done, but i cannot give more than 5 for the fact that it's a conversion"!

So why is the SID-rendition of an existing song regarded as better than the VIC-rendition of an existing picture? You could argue that musicians don't have tools like scanners or Photoshop available to make their c64 renditions, but then I could counter this reasoning with two arguments: a) keying in some notes (most of which are re-used when they're turned into patterns) is less work than setting 32000 (or 64000) pixels, b) people that do original work frequently also use Photoshop, Promotion and Timanthes - sometimes even scanners to get their own outlines and then the usage of these advanced tools not frowned upon!

For me both are exactly the same: The creativity lies in how you squeeze this into c64 limits, and pictures like this are just as awesome as Linus' Bowie-tune!
I'll agree that one difference to a SID conversion is that you can get some really stunning pictures to c64 that only need to you to set a few (or even none, see Wired !) pixels, that's exactly the point i was trying to make when I "hijacked" the TP9 compo - but that's only possible using advanced modes like IFLI or NUFLI, *not* something like standard Multicolor or even just a 5-color greyscale piece like this one! Hell, even Electric's "Herb's Shot" or "Lisa" is a conversion - but in Drazlace, which has pretty much the same restructions as plain Multicolor...

Ofcourse, if a picture is original *and* extremely well executed, that's still better. But that should not mean we cannot appreciate a copied picture... We're not the PC or Amiga Scene, we cannot simply choose our palette from 4096 or even 16,8 million colors or even choose our resolution freely, people tend to forget that!...
User Comment
Submitted by DRAX on 9 October 2010
This is absolutely amazing... Pixel perfect!!! I like it.
User Comment
Submitted by Tim on 7 October 2010
nice pic Sit
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 6 October 2010
I have no real idea how long he worked on it. as i have said below i would be interested to know how long he spent on it. If nothing else then to see if the "mental alarm" went off for him at 10 hours as i have experienced when doing my stuff. which is a very strange experience after 20 odd years :). for those who don't realise, 10 hours was the average time spent on a loading screen in the 80's. after which time the project became decreasingly commercially viable from the artists point of view as you were payed a flat fee.
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 6 October 2010
JCB: agree.

STE'86: It is hand converted :) Unless you want to tell me SIT has scaled the original image perfectly like a machine.
User Comment
Submitted by SanderFocus on 6 October 2010
@STE: Would really like to know how many hours it took SIT.. 8 or 10 hours would be even more amazing. You're in contact with him? Working in greyscale needs constant 'molding', i imagine it's really hard to get the contrast right from the beginning.

As for all the discussions (and i'm getting sick of this), i think Archmage sums it up best.
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 6 October 2010
I feel i am being misquoted yet again...

at no point did i say this took SIT 2 weeks to do. what i said is that i would give anyone else who thought it was converted 2 weeks to convert one to the same quality. Actually I would expect SIT to have probably bought it in under the "10 hour rule".
User Comment
Submitted by JCB on 6 October 2010
@booker, I know what you're saying but even mentioning it (and it seems people keep doing so) means it's somehow in your head that what Ste meant as "he's not rusty" somehow should mean "he's been designing for 21 years yet he's not designed now, just copied" after all, to a lot of people there is no "shame" involved in that stunning conversion job ;)

Anyway, it matters not, everyone of course has their own opinion on if the picture is good or not or better/worse than others. 'nuff said on the subject I think..
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 6 October 2010
JCB: I didn't read it this way you're saying. Actually I don't base anything here on STE'86's opinion. God can come here saying "HEY OBEY TEH GOLLUMRZ PIXOLRZ" and I will say the same. :P I will say "if you have 21y gfx design experience don't shame yourself with spending 2 weeks on copy-pix0lrzing not your work - pixl0rz yours!" :P

Agree with Deev - 9th on X'2010 is fair coz people voted to give SIT a kick to work on C64 scene and showed appreciation of his past work. To me though, there were better pictures down the positions than this one. Something more than only neatly put side-by-side grayscale dots, with the original work on the layer underneath, you know.
User Comment
Submitted by JCB on 6 October 2010
Sorry guys but you're taking that "21 years" thing totally out of context. Ste merely replied to Deekay who said "it seems both you and STE really don't just have their knack after all these years, but even improved it!" by saying "and i would bloody well hope he's as good or better than he was :) after all he's been a professional graphic designer in the industry for 21 years :)". If you somehow read into that Ste saying "this pic is great no matter if it's a COPY or not because SIT's a graphic DESIGNER" (capitals for emphasis on what seems to be your problem) rather than "SIT was good and he's now AS good or maybe better because he's been drawing stuff for 21 years", then that's fairly off the mark ;)

Anyway, yes, amazing skills and yes I would've preferred to see something not "copied" but there's nothing wrong with what SITs done and it's a valid method..
User Comment
Submitted by Deev on 6 October 2010
Doesn't look converted to me. Good to see something from SIT, technical quality is excellent, but I also find many of the other entries more interesting because of their originality, so I think 9th place is about right. oh...and I agree with Booker about the 21 years design experience comment :)
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 6 October 2010
FFS i am getting very bored with this. The technique is called ROTOSCOPING and its been used by Disney et al for about 60 years give or take. Go and wiki it. and ANYONE who thinks that these pixels were not placed by hand should bugger off for 2 weeks and TRY to get any package you want to reproduce that clean, accurate tonal shading when ported back to MC mode. then come back and admit defeat.
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 6 October 2010
Quoting Ksubi
(unlike many of the converted touch ups uploaded here on a regular basis).

Right.

User Comment
Submitted by Ksubi on 5 October 2010
Absolutley brilliant, 10/10! Couldnt care less if SIT is graphic designer or on the dole. This is the shit, pixel by pixel placed on the screen... (unlike many of the converted touch ups uploaded here on a regular basis).
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 5 October 2010
actually this also looks pretty startling done Juno style in brown and 2 greens
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 5 October 2010
Heh, you're a little late STE, the compo is over.

The theme of this picture is not my cup of tea, the technical part is inspiring.
User Comment
Submitted by Geir Tjelta on 5 October 2010
Quite embarrassing. Sorry for posting. ;-)
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 5 October 2010
tell you what, why dont we have our own little compo on here? anyone who fancies their chances at 4-5 colour photorealism on the c64 instead of surreal "rough as a badgers arse" artwork can step up now and prove a point. open to all.

@Geir. looks like Queen is out of the question then mate. wouldnt matter how close you got to it, it would afterall be just a copy and therefore a waste of fcking time apparently.
User Comment
Submitted by Burglar on 5 October 2010
one of my favs from the compo, technically brilliant. welcome back SIT!
User Comment
Submitted by PAL on 5 October 2010
WHY???? this is a very good image on the c64... frame from a movie or not... love... it must have been some major alterings here are there not?

Welcome back and I for one enjoyed it very much on the big screen.
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 5 October 2010
Quoting Carrion
oh and regarding to what i said at X. 6 is still above average which IMO is a positive grade.

I'd put 6 too, (coz it has teh pix0rz) but the "21 years experienced graphics designer" got me completely knocked.
User Comment
Submitted by Frost on 5 October 2010
I really like the skill involved in making this kind of picture in grayscale, event though I don't like that it's a copy.
Thumbs up for the pixelwork.

Oh, wait, It's not entirely grayscale: Smeagol can has purple pixel on his eyebrow. ;D
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 5 October 2010
Well, either I put my honest opinion and you will hate me, or I won't put it at all (but where's the scene then?) But does my opinion matter anyway? ;)

There always has to be a black sheep (here: me) it seems.

For me "SIT" is not enough, Geir. If you were 21-year old experienced in gfx designing and did the same my opinion wouldn't change. Again, "Geir" is not enough for me as well. Say, if you were doing crap today I wouldn't hesitate to give you low notes, even though I absolutely love most of your past work. I'm glad you don't agree with me, but my impression is also 'wtf' (just the other way round ;) )

As much I honestly gave 5 here, this much anxiously I'm waiting for SIT's original work!!!!!!!!oneoeneoneonefuckingone (coz teh pixl0rz rox there, but I already said that ;) )
User Comment
Submitted by Geir Tjelta on 5 October 2010
@Booker, you are a nice guy, but I don't agree with you. ;-)
When I saw the signature SIT on the screen, I thought "what the fck!".
User Comment
Submitted by Clarence on 5 October 2010
what Oswald said
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald on 5 October 2010
absolutely fantastic
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 5 October 2010
maybe he was "testing" himself again. its very easy to "cop out" on an something that doesnt exist except in your head. if the going gets tough, just ignore it, nobody will know you couldnt get that area to work. Not so when your audience can view the original and go "that's wrong , you couldnt do it could you"

i wonder if he brought that pic in under the "10 hour rule" :) maybe Morpheus can find out or maybe he knows already?
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 5 October 2010
People need to get past their copy issues and just bow down to the level of craftsmanship involved here. (Not specifically Booker, but in general)
User Comment
Submitted by booker on 5 October 2010
Amazing pixelwork indeed, completelly ruined for me by the fact it has been a still frame of a movie. Doubleruined when STE'86 said SIT is a graphics designer for over 21 years.

I would expect an orginal picture from such a person. Sorry. No downvoting here, just my honest impression about it... :(
User Comment
Submitted by ne7 on 5 October 2010
actually felt like he could jump out of the screen at us at the party - amazing work!
User Comment
Submitted by Motion on 5 October 2010
DeeKay: He made his own interpretation of the MEGA APOCALYPSE pic. The original was by BOB STEVENSON.
User Comment
Submitted by Ed on 4 October 2010
Top notch!
User Comment
Submitted by Morpheus on 4 October 2010
I was expecting atleast a third spot for this one. Love it! And I have seen the working stages. It's pretty amazing stuff!
User Comment
Submitted by Archmage on 4 October 2010
Pretty fantastic pixelwork going on here. Had it not been a 1:1 photo copy, I would have said that this deserved the numero uno spot. It takes a truly skilled eye to render a grayscale picture like this. Respect.
User Comment
Submitted by Yazoo on 4 October 2010
yes - this is awesome. i just hope there is more to come :) it's so great to see the old heros still have it
User Comment
Submitted by STE'86 on 4 October 2010
you really need to see this on a CRT guys, honestly, to appreciate it.

and i would bloody well hope he's as good or better than he was :) afterall he's been a professional graphic designer in the industry for 21 years :)

should change the sig tho. it's very '80s :P (joke)
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 4 October 2010
What? The guy that made the Mega Apocalypse Intropic and that legendary Alf-picture? Holy shit! 8) And this is some serious, serious pixel-craftsmanship right there, one of my favourites in the compo! it seems both you and STE really don't just have their knack after all these years, but even improved it! ;-D Cause just like STE with his Johnny-pic, this is even better than what you did back then!

P.S: Love how you did the single strands of hair!.. ;-)
User Comment
Submitted by SanderFocus on 4 October 2010
One of the best in the compo - top 3 material imo. So great to see SIT competing, one of the biggest surprises of the X. The picture is truly awesome..
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 4 October 2010
A-Fucking-Awesome! i was like "WTF, did i just read SIT" at the gfx compo. Great great great. Now please someone bring Bob & Dokk back aswell :-D
User Comment
Submitted by Motion on 4 October 2010
OMG! It really is 'X-mas' all over again! You've worked your magic once again, 'My precious'!
Search CSDb
Advanced
Navigate
Prev - Random - Next
Detailed Info
· Summaries
· User Comments (70)
· Production Notes
Fun Stuff
· Goofs
· Hidden Parts
· Trivia
Forum
· Discuss this release
Sponsored links
Support CSDb
Help keep CSDb running:



Funding status:




About this site:
CSDb (Commodore 64 Scene Database) is a website which goal is to gather as much information and material about the scene around the commodore 64 computer - the worlds most popular home computer throughout time. Here you can find almost anything which was ever made for the commodore 64, and more is being added every day. As this website is scene related, you can mostly find demos, music and graphics made by the people who made the scene (the sceners), but you can also find a lot of the old classic games here. Try out the search box in the top right corner, or check out the CSDb main page for the latest additions.
Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2019
Page generated in: 0.097 sec.