Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

PeteD

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,748

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by PeteD

  2. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    Seems to me that there might be some confusion between accuracy and ease. People who never used an analog joystick before are going to find it fairly tough to play games they've been playing with a digital stick. People who've used the same analog stick forever can probably move it straight to any chosen position without much problem. It's analogous to the fretless bass mentioned earlier. Beginning guitarists/bassists have enough trouble finding a note even though they're all delimited with frets and have various markings to tell you where you are. After a while muscle memory kicks in due to repetition. I've been playing guitar (not even practising seriously) for about 15 years and can play without looking because my arms/fingers know where the notes are. I'd hate it if my guitar only had on/off on each string just to make it easier for me ;)

     

    If that doesn't rattle your cage too much then it follows that if you can hit diagonals when you want and change direction or even go to center then the fact there are many possibilities in between is only a better thing and it's just up to software to decide on how accurate IT want's you to be.

  5. Posted

    It's finally descended into personal insults between all three of our usual suspects.

     

    Maybe we can shut down the thread, now, please. icon_smile.gif

     

     

    Don't know why C64 related ppl get insulted when writing only truth..... it's really interesting.

    Well, let's see what happens. Again I get insulted by direct words...

    They both do sophisticated attacks against the community .... again and again....

     

    I wonder why we just cannot stand at the thread, just writing about the possible and impossible, without getting herassed from the outside.

     

    aww, boo hoo. emkay, get over yourself. There's no "community" attacks here, just people pointing out you're being totally out of order (which is what usually starts these arguments), something that the poll shows the majority of people agree with.

    • Like 4

  6. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    As far as the recent controversary ie emkay on conversion of STE's and other original artists C64 or other images, I don't think the signatures should have been removed. Though, because of some technical limitations on how the Atari can place color, keeping some of the full logos might be problematic as they could severely limit the pallette used. Maybe a simplified signature using one of the localized colors in a contrasting method could be simply used instead. List the original artist and the one doing the conversion, both in a small font along the bottom..

     

    Bob, springs to mind..

     

    *edit*

    Having said that, the Bob Sentinel pic sans sig emkay posted in the other thread wouldn't exactly have caused the A8 any problems..

  7. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    It's finally descended into personal insults between all three of our usual suspects.

     

    Maybe we can shut down the thread, now, please. :)

     

    Personal insult? I'm presuming I'm counted as one of the "usual suspects" as there's only Heaven in between Ste's and emkay's posts other than me.. I'd quite like to know where I've insulted anyone in that case. Or are you just goading?

     

    emkay, STE and yourself always do your usual trolling shenanigans against each other. :) Usually you guys avoid perjoratives, but occassionally they slip through. ;)

     

    So you can't then? I don't see any pejoratives (without an R) in what I've posted. I've done no trolling, the closest thing to trolling recently is you pointing the finger and then now saying, well you USUALLY do..

  8. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    It's finally descended into personal insults between all three of our usual suspects.

     

    Maybe we can shut down the thread, now, please. :)

     

    Personal insult? I'm presuming I'm counted as one of the "usual suspects" as there's only Heaven in between Ste's and emkay's posts other than me.. I'd quite like to know where I've insulted anyone in that case. Or are you just goading?

  11. Posted

    Sorry but the amount of time it takes you to convert in no way gives you any right to remove a sig.

     

    Once again, nobody is saying the conversion process is easy, I know it's not. Me and Ste have done similar with the Exploding Fist backgrounds and some other stuff. By all means add your name, "converted by..." but removing a sig?

     

     

    [/repeat myself mode]

     

    Bored now...

    • Like 3

  12. Posted

    There's also a fair bit of difference imho between some "sceners" drawing images from multi million dollar thousands of people modelling/rendering etc and someone "converting" on persons hand drawn image to another machine.

     

    I disagree. This has also something to do with respect (beside the legal issue).

     

    But as I've said before, if the sig is intact at least there's an avenue to trace an image. usually wherever the image is uploaded that the artist knows about, there WILL be attribution/credit to the original in some form..

     

    eg Ste's Gallery on C64.com

     

    Without a sig, nobody would know who to even begin searching for to find that..

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    I don't understand why it isn't obvious to some that the best solution is to just ad "converted by ***".

    Even game sin the 90s had that. At least i remember Turrican on the Atari ST had something along the lines of "original Amiga gfx xxx, Atari conversion xxxx".

     

    I agree regarding games. But for images, this could destroy the impression. Where is the "Original © 2001 Warner Bros" disclaimer in the Gollum image?

     

    How did you know it was Warner Bros? Ohhhh wait, because it's blatantly obvious with an image as well known as Gollum, with a filename Gollum ;)

     

    There's also a fair bit of difference imho between some "sceners" drawing images from multi million dollar thousands of people modelling/rendering etc and someone "converting" on persons hand drawn image to another machine.

     

    Having said that, there's been plenty of examples of people trying to pass off "stolen" wired images on the C64 as their own work and a LOT of the time they get found and and the results are like WW3 compared to these threads.. ;)

  15. Posted

    It's the very fact that it IS a small niche that people should have a bit more respect for the other people crazy enough to still be involved in this stuff..

    I don't think the size of the community should have any bearing at all on whether or not we "respect" others.

     

    ..Al

     

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying size matters ;) I'm just saying if a few people creating images, STILL for these machines can't get a bit of respect from their peers then wtf is the point?

    • Like 1

  18. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    I didn't want to get involved in this on the main thread.

     

    If Joe Smith writes a book and then Adam Brown translates that book in to a different language, the book will have on the front cover "Written by Joe Smith" and then "Translated by Adam Brown"

     

    These same rules apply here surely?

     

    I don't think that the pictures we are talking about are copyrighted as real books are.

     

    UK law states as soon as something is created by an individual they own the copyright to that creation. The fact that Dokk is unlikely to set £1000/hour lawyers onto your ass is beside the point ;)

     

    *edit*

    Also, as pointed out by someone (probably emkay) earlier, the copyright for Druid 2 for eg probably still belongs to Firebird. The artists were typically given free reign with THEIR ART though as long as the company logo was intact.

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    Abyste se z tech signatur uz neposr....

     

    IMHO if you convert an image, you SHOULD remove the signature or do you have an agreement of the "original" author that you can use his signature on something he did not do and maybe even he thinks that it looks terrible (as some individuals here are "saying" that their image on c64 is so brilliant that it is unconvertable to ATARI and it looks like crap there)?

     

    I think you'll find most computer artists, especially 8 bit ones don't mind their pictures being used on other platforms WITH sig intact. I know quite a few of the 80s C64 artists, maybe go ask some and see what they say..

  22. Posted

    If you've "drawn" the conversion, yes. Or did I miss something and that guy photocopied some artwork and added his name?

     

    It is not so easy.

    For ->recreation<- (notice the word) it is more or less necessary, to redraw more or less parts of the image (e.g.PMGs). This is where I abstain from doing so 100% pixel perfect. Removing the sig is then OK?

    Who makes these rules?

     

    I've stopped discussing about 'original' computer art, while there was once a competition, where scanners became widely used (and where forbidden by the rules).

     

    Just to illustrate the 'art' discrepancy:

    * redrawing a movie poster on the machine was 'art' according to the rules

    * creating a unique water-colour picture and scanning this, wasn't

     

    Edit: So IMHO this was a craftsman/use of an imaging application contest...

     

    It's easy enough if you're not pedantic about it. I'm sure you know when you're "converting" something from the C64 that you're not the person who drew that as without the original pixels to work from you'd have to create those pixels yourself, something which is more an art than a craft. If you've altered the image slightly and gone through different processes to make it work on the A8, once again, add a conversion credit but if you (like emkay) think you're now the artist responsible for the image then I'm afraid I strongly disagree, as would the original artist I'm sure.

     

    As far as your discrepancy, I don't see a problem with banning scans for a COMPUTER art competition, it's the skill of drawing ON the computer that the competition is about. If you want to enter a compo with paper art, enter a paper art compo..

     

    I'll try again to make my point, and sorry for all the caps, I'm not shouting it's just for emphasis.

     

     

    It basically comes down to this... If there's an image that doesn't exist on the A8 or a format that's close enough (2bpp, some form of colouring) to be run through some software methods/change the way the pixels are DISPLAYED then it's YOU who must CREATE that image on the A8, ergo it's YOUR skill at drawing that created it.

  23. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    Just to add a little interesting twist here an (auto translated) article about "Kurt Wendt".

    http://translate.goo...en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

     

    He did, what STE & SIT etc. are famous for: Taking an original image and 'converting' it.

     

    He said:

    "I have never seen as a great artist. For a work that is done by hand, is primarily a craft," says Wendt.

     

    What do you think?

     

     

    He's right.

    Hm.. so I should add my sig to my conversions?

     

    If you've "drawn" the conversion, yes. Or did I miss something and that guy photocopied some artwork and added his name?

     

    *edit*

    Hell, if you've actually DONE something to convert the image, then like I've said MANY times already, by all means add something that attributes that "conversion work" NOT "the image" to yourself. Hopefully something that doesn't ruin the original picture like a text screen beforehand or in the case of C64 stuff you could use the easily accessible "border" space to put some text beneath the picture.

  24. Posted

    Fair enough, Ste's post was somewhat off topic by that point and wasn't really necessary, but even now emkay is still trying to justify removing artist sigs...

     

     

    We are going in circles and it is pointless because it only has to be taken on board by one person to stop it all...

     

    As I said earlier (pages ago) that people are generally stupid and if they do say a google image search for a picture and the ones on here appear, they're likely to not even care about the thread title but go to the post where the image is posted and go yeah, nice graphics on the A8 by "whoever posted it" rather than see SIT and think, that's nice, who is SIT? google C64 SIT...

     

     

    Pointless, enough...

  25. Posted · Edited by PeteD

    aehm... can we not simply agree that removing artist handles from pic is not good? and we should add "converting" handle? to respect the original author?

     

    STE is artist that's the same people like musicians who don't like that you take their music and say "it's mine" because of saving from WAV to MP3...

     

    But nobody said "it's mine". The only thing was said "I converted and the result is this"

     

    If the names are removed and there's no obvious link to the original (in the same post for those lazy read one post forum people), even if the names aren't changed to the posters, the "logical" conclusion (according to emkays recent post) is to presume that image is drawn by the person posting it.

AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...