What is in your eyes the best drawn demoscene picture ever?
category: general [glöplog]
Making of scanned pictures pictures is so hilarious to read, especially with "step by step" pictures to show the "progress" and to prove it`s made from scratch when it`s actually more "step by step" reversed. Magic must be the most naive demoscener around, ah well, most demosceners are so bloody naive. I don`t have all the fashion magazines in the world to find the source of all "drawn" pictures, but hey, i got lots of japanese fashion magazines that have lots of Tmk "drawn" pictures in it.
My God how naive and stupid demosceners are :)
My God how naive and stupid demosceners are :)
In the 5th pic in the Bridgeclaw step-by-step, wtf is that man doing in the background? It looks like one of those holiday photos you take and when you get it developped there's some gurning moron in the background that you didn't notice at the time.
I still wonder why Shifter is attacking me here... but who is shifter anyway?
of course.
anttilan kuvasto ftw!
so is Bridgeclaw's picture pixelled or not then..
Gargaj, Made's picture was used in a amiga demo called
side-fx by Nah-Kolor in 1998 ;-)
Navis, yes it is pixelled!
side-fx by Nah-Kolor in 1998 ;-)
Navis, yes it is pixelled!
BTW my favorite is the "raging fire" bull, by RA, little gfx but fantastic color pixeling. (I like how ra used purple and green pixels in any places) Note I 'm not sure the colors are correct on this pic, it looks like if it was remapped by my arse, look the original if you can:
Atleast the fish was original!
Just for remembering the huge Ra technique, here is a X3 zoom on one of his nooon logo, without color loss.
Quote:
Atleast the fish was original!
or taken from another photo as well
Who cares about ripping anyways? Graphics compos are dull anyways.
So is every drawn-on-a-computer picture "pixelled"? Is airbrush, zillions of colors and huge resolution equivalent to plain 1 color un-antialised brush, in 320x256/256 colors? Compare Made's or Lazur's Photoshop and pre-Photoshop images and you'll know what I think...
Was that Bridgeclaw's picture released at some party first? Must be, since I don't see any reason in staging a step-by-step version of a picture that is going to be used in a diskmag.
Zplex: Are you a graphician? From where comes your certainty that Bridgeclaw's picture's step-by-step version is a forgery? I'm not saying it's not. But I'd have to see some steps between first and second step before making my judgement. Yeah, I know, he can still create more "steps" =)
But... even if you'd find that magazine where that girl is originally from, it's still pretty hard to prove that Bridgeclaw's version a scan. For example, there are easy methods in making outlines match perfectly to source picture without using any "dirty" tricks. One is to divide the the source picture to same sized blocks and operate them separately. You can also use a pen to draw outlines through and on a greaseproof paper and place it on your monitor/tv-set and draw "under" it. Ok, this is slipping into the 80s now...
Pretty lame stunt from Made, that fishbowl pic. The original picture had atleast some vague idea behind it. Judging from Made's pencil work from few years back (ok, more like 10 years), the guy can't draw shit. On the other hand his overall pixelling technique was really good!
Most graphicians just like to pixel and are really not that good in drawing human figures, nature or creating an illusion of depth et cetra - lacking the basic skill and knowledge =)
It's fun to see your pixelled picture to develope. It's fascinating to see those little dots form an illusion of something. (To me all this copy/no copy discussion lacks this element). We are not talking about oilpaintings here but pixelled images. Pixelling is so crude method, that creating anything eyepleasing with it is a small marvel. And you learn by copying. If there's a reference picture, you can easily judge how good you really as a pixeller by comparing your picture to the original. Almost every graphician started with doing copies. Some just kept on doing it...
A 15 year old guy drawing a dragon from of a D&D box might just enjoy what he's doing. He wants to show off by reproducing a painting that he likes with his mouse. Why try to portrait him as a failure in something he's not even trying to be?
This whole narrow-minded revisionism seems a bit funny to me, especially when it's coming from people who haven't pixelled anything in their life! (or maybe have tried and failed). It's like me going around in saying that some '87 C64 coder and his works suck because he couldn't do a filled vector.
Was that Bridgeclaw's picture released at some party first? Must be, since I don't see any reason in staging a step-by-step version of a picture that is going to be used in a diskmag.
Zplex: Are you a graphician? From where comes your certainty that Bridgeclaw's picture's step-by-step version is a forgery? I'm not saying it's not. But I'd have to see some steps between first and second step before making my judgement. Yeah, I know, he can still create more "steps" =)
But... even if you'd find that magazine where that girl is originally from, it's still pretty hard to prove that Bridgeclaw's version a scan. For example, there are easy methods in making outlines match perfectly to source picture without using any "dirty" tricks. One is to divide the the source picture to same sized blocks and operate them separately. You can also use a pen to draw outlines through and on a greaseproof paper and place it on your monitor/tv-set and draw "under" it. Ok, this is slipping into the 80s now...
Pretty lame stunt from Made, that fishbowl pic. The original picture had atleast some vague idea behind it. Judging from Made's pencil work from few years back (ok, more like 10 years), the guy can't draw shit. On the other hand his overall pixelling technique was really good!
Most graphicians just like to pixel and are really not that good in drawing human figures, nature or creating an illusion of depth et cetra - lacking the basic skill and knowledge =)
It's fun to see your pixelled picture to develope. It's fascinating to see those little dots form an illusion of something. (To me all this copy/no copy discussion lacks this element). We are not talking about oilpaintings here but pixelled images. Pixelling is so crude method, that creating anything eyepleasing with it is a small marvel. And you learn by copying. If there's a reference picture, you can easily judge how good you really as a pixeller by comparing your picture to the original. Almost every graphician started with doing copies. Some just kept on doing it...
A 15 year old guy drawing a dragon from of a D&D box might just enjoy what he's doing. He wants to show off by reproducing a painting that he likes with his mouse. Why try to portrait him as a failure in something he's not even trying to be?
This whole narrow-minded revisionism seems a bit funny to me, especially when it's coming from people who haven't pixelled anything in their life! (or maybe have tried and failed). It's like me going around in saying that some '87 C64 coder and his works suck because he couldn't do a filled vector.
Hempest: Yeah, i would like to see the "steps" between 1 and 2. All the lightning and shadow are perfect already at step 2.
Sure Bridgeclaw can paint, but not so damn well. He takes to many "shortcuts" sometimes and he gotta admit he is a cheater sometimes :)
I am a graphician or was that in the early 90`s, to bad i couldn`t afford a scanner back then...LOL. Ah well, i`m just an old unknown bastard that blames the cheaters for all my misery..i raise my fist!
Sure Bridgeclaw can paint, but not so damn well. He takes to many "shortcuts" sometimes and he gotta admit he is a cheater sometimes :)
I am a graphician or was that in the early 90`s, to bad i couldn`t afford a scanner back then...LOL. Ah well, i`m just an old unknown bastard that blames the cheaters for all my misery..i raise my fist!
i kinda agree but nowadays with photoshop and stuff its impossible to tell if artist used for example tracing some picture and then juts filled it according source. old pictures to me .. pre 1995 of course i respect technique but i dont like motives if they're copied...
might look like flamefest but it is not...
most perfect technique is imo with lazur. he made 8-bit pictures look like 16,7million colors. very beautiful stuff. very good, but not much originial motives...
but basically artists acted like human scanners. so what? it was back then now is now. and now we dont like copies right?-D
and often proportional errors
I believe I am able to draw and paint somewhat, yet pixel? NO WAY.
It requires this really weird ability to focus on the minute while not focusing on the minute.
It's the second part of the sentence that may require the copying..
It requires this really weird ability to focus on the minute while not focusing on the minute.
It's the second part of the sentence that may require the copying..
yea lazur proportions werent that good. but i personally impressed many of his 8-bit pictures. and also other guys comes to mind, dont wanna start namedropping here ofcourse ;)
Quote:
It's his girlfriend in the picture. But... even if you'd find that magazine where that girl is originally from, it's still pretty hard to prove that Bridgeclaw's version a scan.
This whole No Copy-Movement seems like a relatively new phenomenon in the demoscene, atleast in this scale. I bet coders like Keops were really happy to receive a realistic dragons'n'boobs paintings (naturally copies) for their demos in pre1995.