Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ai
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106

1041
General Discussion / Re: what is the best tool for pixelation?
« on: October 01, 2005, 06:20:41 am »
GIF is not inherently lossy.
Several programs change the colors when saving gif , though (most commonly quantizing to VGA colorspace, 64 intensity levels rather than 255). In addition, it doesn't support color management or gamma, so viewing a GIF in a webbrowser is less likely to give a accurate result than PNG; I encountered this recently where I would save a gif and it would be significantly darker in browser, because my display was colorcorrected and the gif was not.


1042
Pixel Art / Re: PLUG IT! (updated)
« on: September 15, 2005, 07:22:59 am »
I'm playing around too. I mean, there *is* something that puts me off your pics, in seriousness i think it's bizarreness, i do like your bg pics and usually your tiles, your characters scare me..
Whatever my motivations, I'm pretty sure 'helping others' is not explicitly included. I do like showing others interesting stuff that they can make good use of -- And promotion is definitely good for drawing pixel stuff, I would buy it if I didn't mind Windows' silliness. I just objected to you kinda 'clowning' my post on the gimp. Yah don't need plugins to do stuff relating to doubled pixels in gimp, it is just a handy shortcut that doubles the size of the image along the axis which has lesser dpi. Easily done by hand, as i did for all my CPC mode 0 pics so far.

1043
Pixel Art / Re: PLUG IT! (updated)
« on: September 15, 2005, 04:06:48 am »
I wonder, actually. I mean I'm the one who's got a fever, but he's the one acting feverish. humm. Well, there was usually something that put me off any given work of his, maybe that was it.


1044
Pixel Art / Re: PLUG IT! (updated)
« on: September 15, 2005, 12:24:54 am »
also, you seem .. slightly bitter? maybe just bizarre.

Yeah, names chosen from public languages = :(. They never mean quite what I want, public language is vague. Invention is better.

1045
Pixel Art / Re: PLUG IT! (updated)
« on: September 15, 2005, 12:10:35 am »
to you who post bizarre adverts/ propaganda:

.. The most important thing about Promotion is it is not usable under Linux, and the pixel-specific features it has are not enough to convince me to use a broken OS . Similarly i suspect with Pep (and he's just too used to what he has; 24bit stuffs have some interesting advantages for pixelation too).

1046
Pixel Art / Re: PLUG IT! (updated)
« on: September 13, 2005, 04:49:09 pm »
.. or you could use GIMP, make the image 160x200, halve the X DPI of your image (in the 'scale image' dialog), turn off 'view->dot per dot', and paint with an ordinary 1px brush.

The only thing to beware of there is, because you have halved the *width* of the pixels instead of doubling the *amount* of pixels, you need to scale the image up to 320x200 when you want to show it to someone). ( I wrote a gimp plugin 'equalize dpi' which does this automatically for me)


1047
Pixel Art / Re: PLUG IT! (updated)
« on: September 06, 2005, 04:52:22 pm »
Yeah camus, s/helm/neota.
Compare it in vividness to one of your megaman-style sprites.
I think you can make any given area look vivid, but not the whole pic, because the palette is overall too desaturated, as Helm documented.
For vividness, CPC palette is better (though thats a 16 of 27colors palette rather than a 16color palette).

Basically, I think C64 palette is good for backgrounds and bad for sprites , unless you're going for super-simple sprites like Jumpman had.

1048
Pixel Art / Re: The monster might get you! (AA test).
« on: September 04, 2005, 05:32:19 pm »
What resolution did you target it for? AA matters less on high reses, most pixel art is for quite low resolutions.

Also, consider using a screen mode that has square pixels (4:3 aspect ratio), as most screen modes are 4:3; otherwise your pics may look slightly stretched or squashed to others.


1049
... your judges must have been as confused as you were (are?). You refer to (physical laziness + mental work) as lazy, and (mental laziness + physical work) as active, where as they are both lazy. And lazy is bad because it stops you from getting good at stuff..  "work smarter not harder" is great, and sometimes it means you work harder now so you will be able to take it easier later, and sometimes it means choosing physical exercise over mental .

Laziness is a flaw, efficiency is a quality. It looks like you were trying to argue for efficiency but called it laziness.

Like, it would be lazy of me not to explain this. And it would be efficient for me to explain this, because it clarifies my own ideas.

1050
General Discussion / Re: Hi!
« on: August 24, 2005, 04:40:23 am »
I remember.. something. I remember seeing you around pixelation before, not what you did though..



Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106