pouët.net

i love melon dezign, i love graphics.
bring back deluxe paint.
let's pixel something instead of bullshit talks.
cheers everybody.

i love melon dezign, i love graphics.
bring back deluxe paint.
let's pixel something instead of bullshit talks.
cheers everybody.

Sometimes things just need to be said... twice.

LoL, true...

All this reminds me, I saw a picture in an art shop once (an actual painting this was) that was pretty much identical to a scene picture (think it was by made, but can't remember now.. will have to take a look). I wondered at the time which way the copy had gone... was some local artist ripping of a scene artist, or was it a copy of some famous painting somewhere, and they both ripped?!

I do seem to remember the oil on canvas version had lines painted over, and wondered if it had been printed then painted over to hide the fact.

Well, looking at that nocopy website, made was ripping like crazy. So I guess it was Vallejo ripped of by both made and that local artist :)

Jeez, what next, Melon ripping BT tracks into their demos and people cheering for them? :(

Hmm... don't think it was made actually, looking through his stuff. Was definitely a scene artist though. What struck me at the time though was that it was a very 'scenish' pic, which gave me the first impression it was the scene artist that had been ripped. Guess I'll never know.

Demoscene has always been extremely limiting in the no-copy sense, which is sometimes really puzzling. Pictures get disqualified at compos if they reference pictures taken by others. For example, take a reference off a supermodel, then draw/paint it. If people recognize it as Cindy Crawford, it probably gets disqualified even if the whole lighting has changed in the picture. This is what people do in other art forms all the time, but in demoscene it's a sin. Never understood why from an artist POV.

In any other art form where you draw/paint, it'd be ok since references have been and will be used all the time.

I've never really considered those vallejos and such as rips whose makers should burn in hell, because even if they did look at a vallejo piece, it still requires skill to do that stuff with deluxe paint and limited palette, same as it does in any other art form, otherwise anyone could do it. People go at it at different ways, Wade used a grid in his BP03 pic to map down the reference he used, some just put down a general shape to get the positive and negative dimensions, but it's mostly reference off from photos, internet, whatever.

To me, the no-copy page has always been interesting, but I also feel it has contributed alot to how non-existant the demoscene graphics stuff is nowadays (as Xenusion mentioned). I release stuff for the fun of it, but I really don't feel much connection to the general demoscene public since it just consists of yelling the old 'womans head' or 'tits' .. same old, same old :)

Ok, you can now start posting lobsters and whatever the hell you usually do :-)

Why does the "no copy" rule only apply to graphics? Why is it ok for a coder to use the same routines that are used in other demos? Why is it ok for a musician to remix C64 tunes or use drum riffs in their work?

I'd like to see how coders cope without reference material. Let's take away all their source code examples and C++/Assembler books and see what originality they come up with.

Who cares if it's copied? Stop imposing rules and taking the fun out of the scene!

Shane: on the other hand, where's the fun for an imaginative artist who draws his own ideas without copying when his work is rated WAY under someone who just optical-converts a set of Patrick Woodroffe pics?

i fucking hate vallejo. i hate his gay pictures from ass so deeply that if i ever see vallejo repaint ill fucking kill maker of it. and all fans of fantasy art, what the fuck? are you braindead? i mean, seriously? what the fuck is wrong with you? id rather stare blank wall thank look some vallejo/bell picture.

i almost choked on my chewing gum!
that quote needs to be on a shirt. seriously.

But this is my point - everyone is too concerned with ratings, competitions and all that, instead of just doing something because it's fun.

One scener could have a great technique, but no artistic vision, then another scener could have vision and crap technique. I think there should be room in the scene for both people and their talents should be appreciated for what they are instead of what they "should" be.

Another thing.....since this anti-copier witch hunt started, the quality of painted graphics in demos has gone way downhill and are extremely rare in demos.

Personally, I'd much rather see a Facet or Cougar copy over the modern day photo manip any day!

Shanethewolf: there actually are some people who don't give a shit at all about competitions by the way.

They just make the intros/demos they think are missing in the demoscene, the ones they would like to see more often.
That's what we always do (and will do for Numerica). I know a few other sceners who do that (MFX/Kewlers, Hitch, Knos among others)

Shane: my point is that one should appreciate the magical combination of the two instead of going simply for raw skill. There is room in the scene, but rankings are rankings ever since the demoscene chose to be a meritocracy.

And competition IS fun btw.

WADE IS BACK TO INTERNETS!!!! HELLO WADE!!??

ooh shane.. i mean wade. isnt your post bit too visible? you bored of your life?

uns3en_: INTERNETS ARE CLOSED, MOVE ALONG SIR

same reaction as REZ.

Fuck WALT and MACK the lamers. If you meet them , please beat their ugly junky faces down.

I actually read an old interview in a very read french amiga magazine where MACK explain in a 2 pages article how the pic was drawn, with exchanges between the 2 graphicians, th' hard work, the discussions between them, and well I will try to find this mag back in my archives.

strange enough, the message still gets shouted down by copy or no copy discussions... i really don't care if an artist copies, he may do whatever he pleases! In my eyes, it's perfectly okay for anyone with enough lack of ideas or another kind of motivation to copy any pic he likes. IF he states CLEARLY for everybody to see what he did (and link the original image). maybe in earlier years, things were different, and people just know it was copied, but if someone today puts a copied pic in a compo, he wants some of the real artists fame. it's the fuckin lamest thing you could do. Imagine someone copying your work(in which you invested very much time and blood) and getting mad props for it, without any hint about the original creator. that would make me furious!

It's another thing with "normal" reference" photos. on cg-talk e.g. nobody has a problem stating he used photo-ref. just say it, and all is well! but with a real painted picture, this is truly another story (retouching a photo and implicating it was painted is total suckage, too) And the difference between Inspiration and copying is worlds. Going drawing with the mindset "I must not be influenced/inspired" is destined to fail, too.

and i don't understand the people saying "oh i dont mind, i'd choose the copied vallejo any day over some original but not so good image":
well *I* would choose a _good quality original image_ over a copied vallejo any day, and *that's* the point, I'd say. why do you bring in the low-skill argument? are original scene artists so low on skill they have to copy vallejo? just have a look at aliens site goddamnit!

BASTAAAARD ! THOU SHALL NOT INFRIGE THE F**CK SCENE !