emkay Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 An initial for a A8 related pic I probably would have started with this one: IT's a 4 colour import.... 5 colour import is possible aswell with some trick. And, with some fully A8 palette related import filter the precision may get better aswell. Removing some transitions , adding the "white" , some details, and so on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 An initial for a A8 related pic I probably would have started with this one: IT's a 4 colour import.... 5 colour import is possible aswell with some trick. And, with some fully A8 palette related import filter the precision may get better aswell. Removing some transitions , adding the "white" , some details, and so on... Forgetting that SIT worked from a blank screen rather than converting, lets see how long it takes you to convert one of the three wired images in this thread into something with the same level of detail. The time stamp on your post says "10:25 AM". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 ... SIT worked from a blank screen rather than converting ... Are you sure ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 ... SIT worked from a blank screen rather than converting ... Are you sure ? i'd lay money on that being the case, yes. This quote from a C64.com interview may be referring to how he worked in the 1980's and 1990's and predates the Gollum picture by a couple of years... I remember taking some of my work to a local computer store. The guy who owned the shop didn't believe I drew them at all and thought I'd digitized them. I used a technique I'd learned at art college called negative shape drawing with a lot of my copied work. This involved not actually looking at the image, but instead copying its component shapes. This is a good technique with any kind of portrait or still life painting and makes an image far easier to breakdown and compose. ...but back then he wasn't using a digitised image as a base to produce excellent images like these... ...so the idea that someone that talented would suddenly need to change technique and just reshade a converter-generated base image just doesn't sit right... and please excuse the "pun". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 ...so the idea that someone that talented would suddenly need to change technique and just reshade a converter-generated base image just doesn't sit right... and please excuse the "pun". Sorry, but I still don't care how long it took him to produce that picture, as he didn't/you don't care how long it took to produce the "original" Gollum picture. And I'm not questioning his talents, I'm just talking about the picture. Or do you expect somebody from the Atari side to sit down and recreate those images pixel by pixel? There would be not posts for weeks/months. Claiming that Emkay changed the sig is nothing but niggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 ...and, apart from that, emkay didn't turn the sig into his own sig. And, another thing: I'm still not sure whether we should call it art, when a lot of time was spent to make pixels fit better. I'm sure some 'intelligent' software exists to reach similar effects. So, the question is: Should we congratulate the 'painter' with his ARTISTIC TALENTS, or his great TECHNICAL ABILITIES TO PUT MORE CONTRAST IN THE PICTURE? In the latter case (which I believe is a better way of saying it) we shouldn't do nagging about "disrespecting the artist" when another variation is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) ...and, apart from that, emkay didn't turn the sig into his own sig. And, another thing: I'm still not sure whether we should call it art, when a lot of time was spent to make pixels fit better. I'm sure some 'intelligent' software exists to reach similar effects. So, the question is: Should we congratulate the 'painter' with his ARTISTIC TALENTS, or his great TECHNICAL ABILITIES TO PUT MORE CONTRAST IN THE PICTURE? In the latter case (which I believe is a better way of saying it) we shouldn't do nagging about "disrespecting the artist" when another variation is made. Pls. don't loose the focus (as I did too). This thread is about converting pictures to Atari. Not about who is an artist and who isn't This thread gone to a sideway in http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/170075-druid-2-title-screen/page__view__findpost__p__2108274 when STE'86 started to question the quality of the picture. Edited October 7, 2010 by jvas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Why blame me? Some pages ago some people started fighting and complaining about the painter being disrespected as an artist. So, the thread was already getting derailed. So, point your comments to those people, not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 actually the thread is about converting the Druid 2 pic to A8... not pictures nor c64 vs A8 thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 and the SIT's gollum pic looks so accurate that I would have claimed that it is digized and with dithering by own... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Why blame me? Some pages ago some people started fighting and complaining about the painter being disrespected as an artist. So, the thread was already getting derailed. So, point your comments to those people, not me. I was not blaming, but warning you. Sorry if I was not precise enough. English is not my native language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Why blame me? Some pages ago some people started fighting and complaining about the painter being disrespected as an artist. So, the thread was already getting derailed. So, point your comments to those people, not me. I was not blaming, but warning you. Sorry if I was not precise enough. English is not my native language. OK, then nothing changes. Why warn ME? Why not warning (nearly) everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) Why blame me? Some pages ago some people started fighting and complaining about the painter being disrespected as an artist. So, the thread was already getting derailed. So, point your comments to those people, not me. I was not blaming, but warning you. Sorry if I was not precise enough. English is not my native language. OK, then nothing changes. Why warn ME? Why not warning (nearly) everyone else? I warned everybody in http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/170075-druid-2-title-screen/page__view__findpost__p__2110014 I warned you personally because you kept on discussing "ARTISTIC TALENTS". I didn't want to offend you though. Edited October 7, 2010 by jvas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 and the SIT's gollum pic looks so accurate that I would have claimed that it is digized and with dithering by own... That also would explain the greyscale that is used. It's the only way on the C64 to have a picture with one "colour" at 5 different lumas. And we know how good those PC to C64 convertes work. Well, we don't know the truth. But it is also possible , he really painted the picure from scratch. Those 8-bit pictures only have approx. 32000 pixels. C64 colours are fixed. If you know about it, you can draw "everything". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezz Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) I think it goes without saying that whilst some kudos can be due for recreating pictures from other platforms with the laborious task of working out the technicalities to overcome the limitations which ranges in difficulty depending on the original picture and can many times require several hours of work, you can't ever take any credit for the artistry? Isn't that's a given? I must say I'm surprised at some of the later posts here which will be offensive to any pixel artists who read it. Rather than appreciating that an artist has had the skill and patience to pixel something from scratch making a final image that resembles a photographic rendering, it's being panned as unoriginal work that could as well just have been digitised and touched up? I can tell you that no cheap process can replace the skill of an artist and much more so when you are working with a limited palette. Edited October 7, 2010 by Tezz 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 ...I must say I'm surprised at some of the later posts here which will be offensive to any pixel artists who read it. Rather than appreciating that an artist has had the skill and patience to pixel something from scratch making a final image that resembles a photographic rendering, it's being panned as unoriginal work that could as well just have been digitised and touched up? I can tell you that no cheap process can replace the skill of an artist and much more so when you are working with a limited palette. Sorry to say that, but from the point of view of the subject of this thread (converting C64 picture to Atari), the artistic skills of the authors are totally irrelevant. I also fall into this trap, when I questioned the origin of the Gollum picture (it was too pixel perfect for me to accept it, as a hand made only picture) though it is irrelevant. Also I thought a bit differently about what "original artwork" means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezz Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Sorry to say that, but from the point of view of the subject of this thread (converting C64 picture to Atari), the artistic skills of the authors are totally irrelevant. I also fall into this trap, when I questioned the origin of the Gollum picture (it was too pixel perfect for me to accept it, as a hand made only picture) though it is irrelevant. Also I thought a bit differently about what "original artwork" means...well, yes it's true that the term "original artwork" can be subjective and open to meaning however, "the artistic skills of the authors are totally irrelevant" I don't know where you are coming from with that? How can the work of someone else's pixel artistry that you are recreating be irrelevant? Credit where it's due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) Sorry to say that, but from the point of view of the subject of this thread (converting C64 picture to Atari), the artistic skills of the authors are totally irrelevant. I also fall into this trap, when I questioned the origin of the Gollum picture (it was too pixel perfect for me to accept it, as a hand made only picture) though it is irrelevant. Also I thought a bit differently about what "original artwork" means...well, yes it's true that the term "original artwork" can be subjective and open to meaning however, "the artistic skills of the authors are totally irrelevant" I don't know where you are coming from with that? How can the work of someone else's pixel artistry that you are recreating be irrelevant? Credit where it's due. I did write this: from the point of view of the subject of this thread, the artistic skills of the authors are totally irrelevant. We should discuss here whether a particular picture can be converted to Atari and if yes, then how. Edited October 7, 2010 by jvas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 and the SIT's gollum pic looks so accurate that I would have claimed that it is digized and with dithering by own... That also would explain the greyscale that is used. Hows your attempt at reproducing what SIT did going, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 don't get me wrong I fully appreciate the Gollum pic, made by SIT but it looks really nearly "pixelperfect" in term of shape etc... you have to admit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezz Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 We should discuss here whether a particular picture can be converted to Atari and if yes, then how.yes, agreed although rather than discussing recreating individual pictures it's best as Irgendwer has kindly started to continue writing guides to making the most of the A8's features and making full use of the available tools so that further users will create original art and do some conversions too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezz Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) don't get me wrong I fully appreciate the Gollum pic, made by SIT but it looks really nearly "pixelperfect" in term of shape etc... you have to admit? yea the shape and proportions do look very accurate to the original image for sure, I think perhaps it's best though not to speculate on how Stephen Thomson (SIT) achieved his final picture without the artist himself being here to explain his personal process. Whether or not he worked from a scan on that occasion or if he derived his initial rough outlines from the source picture to begin pixeling I wouldn't like to say although even if that is the case, it is still drawing with the skilled pixeling and shading/dithering that he has produced to create the final image. I've seen his skills with other pictures that look photo realistic which were definitely drawn from scratch by hand with native tools so I wouldn't like to say either way 100% whether he started that one from a blank page. I understand the point being made about the true originality of the source in the process of converting but the physical pictures that are being converted here are the final images that were created by the artist using whatever steps they took in creating it so it is their work. Edited October 7, 2010 by Tezz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 right ok for the benefit of the whole thread in one concise post... YES it is pixel perfect, the technique used was probably ROTOSCOPING using PS, PSP, GIMP whatever u want. they can all let you do it. It is the same technique that illustrators and animators the world over use to transfer photographs to their media and have done for 60 odd years. it allows you perfect accuracy in laying out your design, but still requires you to actually pixel it in by hand. I have absolutely no doubt that it IS hand pixelled because i have spent time since my return to 8 bit trying to get PS to convert stuff seamlessly to the 8 bit platform and i can honestly say that u cant. it still looks as bloody awful when you convert now with no artistic intervention and talent, as it did 20 years ago when people first tried on the 16 bits. i also know that SIT had no need to "cheat" in any form because he could do it 20 years ago so there is no reason he couldnt now. the modern technology has, i have found just made life easier by letting you do things faster, more accurately and lets you experiment more than in the old days. oh and that pics looks just as impressive (possibly even more so) when converted "Juno" style in white,light green, dark green and brown. you remember Juno, Emkay? that was another c64 pic by Bob you ripped off without crediting for your game Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 just my last 2 cents regarding recreating art... I know the times when in Amiga gfx compos "scans" arrived... same and similar discussion. So I will not speculate how he got Gollum "perfect" (f.e. semitransparent paper ontop of TV set... ) but he seems very talented in pixel art... still Kudos. you know... even the perspective is nearly perfect as far as I remember screenshots from the movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezz Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 .. also a similar process was used by one of the most revered master painters who reflected an image onto the canvass to trace the outlines to begin the painting process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.