|
Twelve Jokers In A Deck by Loonies [web] & The Twitch Elite
[nfo]
|
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
popularity : 51% |
|||||||||||||
alltime top: n/a |
|
|||||||||||||
added on the 2025-06-29 08:55:07 by Blueberry  |
||||||||||||||
popularity helper
comments
Now this is demoscene
rulez added on the 2025-06-29 09:56:00 by break 
Cool stuff :-)
Impressive!!
Excellent one. Now you are talking!
Tuning the routines to hardware to (almost) perfection =).
Old, good feelings are back!
Tuning the routines to hardware to (almost) perfection =).
Old, good feelings are back!
A new world record, beautifully staged.
I love everything about this!
love it :D
Love it, I would never have guessed it was possible :)
Impressive effect, beautifully presented
Tip of the hat for you sirs.
Looks nice and entertaining scroller!
sweet
An ace up the sleeve.
That's fun, world records continue to live even after. The text scroll and history is nice!
Excellent! What break said!
Cool!
Racing the beam... so, a Spectrum 512 picture from 1987 with "dynamic" palettes 😉
Or am I missing something?
Racing the beam... so, a Spectrum 512 picture from 1987 with "dynamic" palettes 😉
Or am I missing something?
Hey, congratulations Blueberry and all the team!
I would have loved to be in Posadas to see it first hand and feel the adrenaline in the compo :D but unfortunately I couldn't be there this year.
What a great presentation!, Graphically and musically a pleasure. In your eagerness to fight the Joker, have you thought about joining the Batman Group? hehe xD
But there are still some small quibbles I have to make about some of your world record claims.
I was just talking about it with Hannibal in the Boreal Dust comments: when it comes to setting records, it is sometimes confusing to establish what is or is not the same type of effect. For example, in this case the effect is not a 100% copperchunky, as at least half of the pixels are written to the colour registers with the CPU instead of the copper. So I would say that the record of columns in a 100% copperchunky 4x4 still belongs to the Joker. Don't you agree?
On the other hand, in the first secret part of Joker Snacks on Blueberries there are 57 x 64 = 3648 blocks (same as yours but in different aspect ratio :), so here you have equalled, not beaten the biggest 4x4 RGB rotozoomer on OCS running 50fps with scroller and music record :)
In any case, thanks for keeping the competitive spirit of the demoscene alive and congratulations on your "Widest 4x4 RGB rotozoomer on OCS: 64 columns" record!
I would have loved to be in Posadas to see it first hand and feel the adrenaline in the compo :D but unfortunately I couldn't be there this year.
What a great presentation!, Graphically and musically a pleasure. In your eagerness to fight the Joker, have you thought about joining the Batman Group? hehe xD
But there are still some small quibbles I have to make about some of your world record claims.
I was just talking about it with Hannibal in the Boreal Dust comments: when it comes to setting records, it is sometimes confusing to establish what is or is not the same type of effect. For example, in this case the effect is not a 100% copperchunky, as at least half of the pixels are written to the colour registers with the CPU instead of the copper. So I would say that the record of columns in a 100% copperchunky 4x4 still belongs to the Joker. Don't you agree?
On the other hand, in the first secret part of Joker Snacks on Blueberries there are 57 x 64 = 3648 blocks (same as yours but in different aspect ratio :), so here you have equalled, not beaten the biggest 4x4 RGB rotozoomer on OCS running 50fps with scroller and music record :)
In any case, thanks for keeping the competitive spirit of the demoscene alive and congratulations on your "Widest 4x4 RGB rotozoomer on OCS: 64 columns" record!
Upss, I forgot the thumbs up.
New record, beatifully presented (nice touch with the ruler) - and it looks really great too!
Huge technical achievement, and nicely presented
Didn't understand a thing but didn't stop me from enjoying the one-upmanship. A bit like watching the skaters in front of my office building yesterday.
I loved the ruler at the top showing how many columns it is running at! Also the beam racing needs some mad skills! Not sure if there will be any more records after this one :)
What they all said!
Thanks for the comments, Rhino!
You are absolutely right about the total size. I had only measured the second hidden part. Indeed, this record is only tangential. I had 58 rows running but had to reduce it to have time for music and scroller. :)
As for when an effect is the same, I guess there are basically two definitions you could employ:
1. End result. The technique used here is visually indistinguishable from copperchunky (unlike HAM-based approaches, for instance), so in that sense, it's the same effect.
2. Underlying technique. How you you define copperchunky? I would say that one of the criteria is that each pixel corresponds to one memory location, and the pixel values written there do not need any further processing before they can be displayed. With that constraint, none of our recent records count. Not sure about Hannibal's.
You still have the opportunity to be the first to release a 59 column true copperchunky. ;)
You are absolutely right about the total size. I had only measured the second hidden part. Indeed, this record is only tangential. I had 58 rows running but had to reduce it to have time for music and scroller. :)
As for when an effect is the same, I guess there are basically two definitions you could employ:
1. End result. The technique used here is visually indistinguishable from copperchunky (unlike HAM-based approaches, for instance), so in that sense, it's the same effect.
2. Underlying technique. How you you define copperchunky? I would say that one of the criteria is that each pixel corresponds to one memory location, and the pixel values written there do not need any further processing before they can be displayed. With that constraint, none of our recent records count. Not sure about Hannibal's.
You still have the opportunity to be the first to release a 59 column true copperchunky. ;)
Love it!
You spin me round, round, baby
@Blueberry
About visual end result, HAM7 chunky is superior imo, not only because it is faster and allows to do more blocks (for example, 80*49=3920 in Inside the Machine), but also because it has less restictions in size and best visual quality, as you get a blurring that camouflages the big pixels.
Then, being these alternative techniques to HAM7 visually inferior, for me this was always a technical question about the limits of copper, as I answered to Bifat when he asked me about the sense of this competition: "The insistence on real 4x4 copperchunky is because it forces you to face the limit of moves that the copper is capable of per scanline. This makes it a more interesting challenge than simply beating the total number of chunky pixels with no restrictions on pixel size."
But, from now on we could remove the term copperchunky from the equation and make the competition broader, e.g. widest 4x4 RGB rotozoomer.
Btw, 100% copperchunky in my opinion is when the copper sends all color values to the registers, regardless of how many times it has to send the same pixel, while the CPU only writes each pixel in the copperlist once.
Regards and congrats again!
About visual end result, HAM7 chunky is superior imo, not only because it is faster and allows to do more blocks (for example, 80*49=3920 in Inside the Machine), but also because it has less restictions in size and best visual quality, as you get a blurring that camouflages the big pixels.
Then, being these alternative techniques to HAM7 visually inferior, for me this was always a technical question about the limits of copper, as I answered to Bifat when he asked me about the sense of this competition: "The insistence on real 4x4 copperchunky is because it forces you to face the limit of moves that the copper is capable of per scanline. This makes it a more interesting challenge than simply beating the total number of chunky pixels with no restrictions on pixel size."
But, from now on we could remove the term copperchunky from the equation and make the competition broader, e.g. widest 4x4 RGB rotozoomer.
Btw, 100% copperchunky in my opinion is when the copper sends all color values to the registers, regardless of how many times it has to send the same pixel, while the CPU only writes each pixel in the copperlist once.
Regards and congrats again!
Whether blurry or crisp pixels look best is a matter of taste, but no matter which definition you adopt, it's a different effect.
I completely agree. The way the limited copper time and the available color registers play together makes this a very fun challenge.
That definition makes sense as well. With the risk of sounding like Photon, I would postulate that 59 is the maximum achievable for 4x4 under these constraints. Do you agree?
Quote:
"The insistence on real 4x4 copperchunky is because it forces you to face the limit of moves that the copper is capable of per scanline. This makes it a more interesting challenge than simply beating the total number of chunky pixels with no restrictions on pixel size."
I completely agree. The way the limited copper time and the available color registers play together makes this a very fun challenge.
Quote:
Btw, 100% copperchunky in my opinion is when the copper sends all color values to the registers, regardless of how many times it has to send the same pixel, while the CPU only writes each pixel in the copperlist once.
That definition makes sense as well. With the risk of sounding like Photon, I would postulate that 59 is the maximum achievable for 4x4 under these constraints. Do you agree?
Joke- erm chock-ful of records :)
Congrats on the record - and congrats on a stylish amiga intro with attitude!
Quote:
That definition makes sense as well. With the risk of sounding like Photon, I would postulate that 59 is the maximum achievable for 4x4 under these constraints. Do you agree?
I think so, unless Photon or someone else proves otherwise :)
Top men at work here
This was a beautiful production! Power house code, looking pretty, and I really appreciated the ruler on top - I'm tired of counting bars!
I'm a fan of Blueberry's first definition. IMO If it is a pixel perfect equivalent of an effect, then it counts. If you're working on a bob record, and you combine it with sprites, I'd count it as long as it looks right. If you come up with a new way of working around those limitations, then that's just mastery of the machine.
To me copperchunky simply means "4096 colored 4x4 pixels, no ham errors, on Amiga 500 OCS".
I don't consider the "each pixel is a single memory location" requirement to be important factor, so to me Rhino's 59 is great and this is greater. My 57+1 was a single address per chunk written by the CPU, but I imagine Rhino's could be turned into that, too, and still be larger than my tiny screen :-)
And I disagree with Rhino - ham fringes are ugly!
I'm a fan of Blueberry's first definition. IMO If it is a pixel perfect equivalent of an effect, then it counts. If you're working on a bob record, and you combine it with sprites, I'd count it as long as it looks right. If you come up with a new way of working around those limitations, then that's just mastery of the machine.
To me copperchunky simply means "4096 colored 4x4 pixels, no ham errors, on Amiga 500 OCS".
I don't consider the "each pixel is a single memory location" requirement to be important factor, so to me Rhino's 59 is great and this is greater. My 57+1 was a single address per chunk written by the CPU, but I imagine Rhino's could be turned into that, too, and still be larger than my tiny screen :-)
And I disagree with Rhino - ham fringes are ugly!
And thank you Rhino, Blueberry and Leonard for joining the record battles this year! It's been fun to watch!
Killer style, music, everything.
@Hannibal
I don't think Photon would agree with that definition where only visuals matter :) For example, I could make a glenz vector with my vector player that looks exactly the same as one programmed in real time (or with precomputed transformations), but with many more faces and bigger. And in this case, and without setting a precedent, I would agree with Photon that a vector player should not count as a glenz vector record even if it is visually indistinguishable.
For me, the visual result would be a necessary but not sufficient condition. The technique behind the effect is also important.
My objection was that I had always approached this challenge as copperchunky (or what I understand a copperchunky to be), all the prods that have participated in the challenge before this one have talked about copperchunky and I have restricted my ideas to that category. Removing that term from the challenge now opens up new possibilities, which is great because maybe the challenge on copperchunky was already dead.
I don't think Photon would agree with that definition where only visuals matter :) For example, I could make a glenz vector with my vector player that looks exactly the same as one programmed in real time (or with precomputed transformations), but with many more faces and bigger. And in this case, and without setting a precedent, I would agree with Photon that a vector player should not count as a glenz vector record even if it is visually indistinguishable.
For me, the visual result would be a necessary but not sufficient condition. The technique behind the effect is also important.
My objection was that I had always approached this challenge as copperchunky (or what I understand a copperchunky to be), all the prods that have participated in the challenge before this one have talked about copperchunky and I have restricted my ideas to that category. Removing that term from the challenge now opens up new possibilities, which is great because maybe the challenge on copperchunky was already dead.
\o/
submit changes
if this prod is a fake, some info is false or the download link is broken,
do not post about it in the comments, it will get lost.
instead, click here !