1. The well proven 'Deekay-method of witch-hunting'. - "Boooh! It's sooo easy to pixel in IFLI, and you probably wire too, because it's IFLI. And it flickers. FLI+Flickering+Hires is evil. XYZFLI+flickering+Hires and everything else isn't. Period." These kind of reactions prove that they most likely don't have the fucking clue, never tried to pixel anything in IFLI or just trying to express their personal failure in pixelling IFLI.
Dude, what's your problem? Did i ever accuse you of wiring your stuff?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the "Bigscreen-effect": On a beamer you just can not see any flicker, which gives an unfair advantage in Compos, because even the most horrible flickering pictures (think: alternating vertical columns of black/white) look just fine on the bigscreen! It's not only unfair towards people working in non- interlaced modes, it's also unfair towards the people that make GOOD laced pics without much flickering!
Besides: I think using non-blended screenshots for IFLI-pictures is misleading in the highest degree.
It's unfair towards people like TCH that actually work in real hires and UFLI because the screenshots look the same,
but the IFLIs are ofcourse much more colorful!
You can't even see how much it flickers using a blended screenshot already, so don't try to also fake murky details that just aren't there when viewing the picture on a real c64 - OR an emulator! It does not matter how the picture looks like when you work on it in zoom-mode or on Amiga, that's not what is actually seen on the screen when displaying the picture! Where's the checkerboard pattern gone? Oh, right, we now have alternating flicker-lines for that! Hello?
And once when we get rid of flickering from the compos, next will be to get rid of hi-res images because they're unfair to compete with low-res images.
Um, so blended IFLI screenshots are ofcourse less colorful, oh I see! Well, for your information, the IFLI images look much more colorful on the C64 as well.
No, I never said you accused me of anything.
On the other hand, your anti-IFLI manifestos were always tickling (not just) my balls, and there were more than enough of them during the years.
No offence, but an "IFLI is for weenies" statement is what I'd expect from a person who probably knows nothing (or at least not too much) about weeks or months of painting and optimizing flickering to the bone in the world's most fucked up, buggy pixel editors.
Whilst we're at accusations, what about you being one of the most known medium of addressing other graphicians for wiring (sometimes even without a single clue)? Does that ring a bell?
No one is forced to pixel non-flickering or less-flickering pictures for compos. Furthermore, not a single person is forced to compete on parties at all if he/she can't live with the rules that are set. What unfairness you're talking about? It was unfair to wire for compos, it really was. But being unfair for pixelling too flickery images? Wow. And you ask about my problems when I mention witch hunting?
And once when we get rid of flickering from the compos, next will be to get rid of hi-res images because they're unfair to compete with low-res images. That would be a real step forward, at least according to your logic.
Misleading to whom, exactly? For Johnny Clueless who doesn't know what "Type: C64 Graphics (Interlaced FLI)" means?
Gosh, amazing. Do you watch gif/png screenshots or native graphics formats on your C64? You judge about a picture by the screens displayed on your pc or do you transfer them to the real deal to take a peak?
Um, so blended IFLI screenshots are ofcourse less colorful, oh I see!
Well, for your information, the IFLI images look much more colorful on the C64 as well.
Right, and you see the exact C64 UFLI picture or dithering as on the gif/png screenshot... Give me a break, please!
A person who judges a picture by the screenshot or by seeing it in the emu only, should do his homework, really. It's not the way to do. But wait a minute, why I'm telling this to _you_? Nevertheless, this topic has nothing to do with IFLI screenshots.
For everyone who gets all this "IFLI sucks/doesn't sucks" thing too serious: you shouldn't. Who cares? If you like it, good, a graphician's fun turned into a pleasure of yours. If you don't like it, that's fine too. Noone got hurt. So what's the big deal?
You do see the difference between hires and lores on the bigscreen.
- You do NOT see the difference between UFLI and IFLI, because the beamers remove the flickering from the IFLI. This is indeed kinda unfair, since people will not see that a picture is interlaced.
Blended screenshots are reflecting what you see on a real C64 most accurate, while 320x200 shots do not reflect it. That was the point-
Ok, and do you see the differnce between FLI and Multicolor on the big screen? I don't see anyone spitting on FLI for the same matter.
My personal opinion is still that an utterly ugly blended screenshot has less resemblance with the image we see on C64 than a dithered one. You could write me down the opposite for another 100 times, I'll still rather believe my eyes than your words.
Then why do you most certainly word your postings like i did?
Like which? From what i remember i wrote two columns about the subject. Maybe you should re-read them, cause i have the impression there's some serious overblowing going on...
Yeah, right, like i've never worked in Fun/Gunpaint.. Besides: If YOU choose to pixel your stuff on c64 in these editors and others do great pictures too in IFLI WITHOUT these buggy editors on Amiga or in Photoshop, wouldn't you say your unneccessary labor is your very own choice?
Oh my, here we go again, I see you've been talking to some people... Actually no. From what i remember i did write that with some people i wanted to see some workstages or see them working. If that's the same as accusing somebody, then that's your problem. Especially since you never were one of them.
In other communities it's totally normal to have technical means of verification, just think of the cheaters in the gaming community and stuff like punkbuster. Or why would you think handing in workstages is a requirement these days for pixel competitions? Do the organizers accuse EVERYONE taking part in the competition of wiring? Applying your logic "asking for proof" = accusation it most certainly would be... Witchhunters, every single one of them! ;-)
Point in case: I can do an IFLI-picture in 2 hours in Photoshop plus some fixing on c64 afterwards and win a Compo with it (one that doesn't require workstages that is!). So far, this can only be done in IFLI. And you ask me why I'm suspicious of IFLI-pictures?
If it looks shit on a real c64 and looks great on Bigscreen, it's unfair towards others whose pictures also look great on a real c64. Period. No witches were killed in the writing of this posting!
Well, I don't even know HOW you add the information about the GFX-mode used to a CSDB entry. I see you do (however this works!), but you're about the only person that does. Usually it just says "C64 Graphics" and that's it! Go check for yourself!
Bullshit reasoning. I was comparing to UFLI. _Only_ rastered IFLI-"Screenshots" compare 1:1 to UFLI, because they suggest it's actually Hires! But it's not, it's FAKE Hires! So just don't pretend it's Hires because that's what the editor seemingly displays, is that too much to ask for?... I don't, but it comes sufficiently close, especially using PAL-Emulation. This is _not_ true for rastered IFLI-Picture-Screenshots! They flicker (which cannot be displayed in GIF/PNG) _and_ they are murky because of $d016 (which CAN be displayed in GIF/PNG using blending!)
I would say a person who uploads pretend-hires-"Screenshots" of something that just IS NOT HIRES should do his homework.
Ok let's explain it a bit more so you don't miss the point one more time: hires vs lores : you see the same on bigscreen and on real c64 koala vs FLI : you see the same on bigscreen and on real c64 IFLI vs UFLI : IFLI does not look the same as on real c64, while UFLI does
In this particular context we were discussing the matter on how can someone tell the difference of different graphicsmodes _on the bigscreen_, weren't we?
Blended images are extraugly for my taste. Much uglier than emulated interlace, and I can't stand them.
Whatever, I still find the blended images ugly. They simply look rubbish, and have nothing in common with the C64 images. The dithered images still look a bit more close to the original, and that's what counts in my opinion.
Huh? With interlace you DO blend two 160x200 images, so you agree now that doing that is extra-ugly?
No we were discussing the fact that if the bigscreen shows something which isnt there, it's unfair.
I think that animated gif won't refresh so fast as interlace does
Then see if you still dare tell me that you *actually* see individual teeth and beard-hair instead of a murky mess on the monster's head, a grid of pixels instead of horizontal lines (purple background) and that you can actually READ the Katon-Signature on a real c64!
Please. I never told you that I see the individual pixels. The only thing I'm trying to say that the blurred shit still looks much crappier compared to the original than the dithered one.
And I perfectly get your's and Graham points about the technical aspects, but both of you seem to put waaaay to much accents on representing C64 images on PC. I mean, those are _not_ the C64 images. The real images execute on the C64, not on the PC, right?
Lying once is better than lying twice? Common, is it really that philosophical?
My personal opinion is that i like rastered shots better. At least they have only 16 colors, while the blended ones have more -> i can't refer to them as being c64-gfx at all.
Do i have to repeat myself? I have a personal *opinion*, appart from technical/theoretical agruments (which i on the other hand agree on). I like one thing better than the other, even though it might be less correct in some aspects.
Try lying with my girlfriend.. You're just so good at applying a truth to something totally unrelated. Lying with screenshots is mostly harmless to everybody, though i might be totally mistaken there ;).
call me a medium, but I can distuingish the individual pixels on the real machine while watching a laced pic. :D
Checkerboard patterns are ofcourse out of this question, but I know whats in the memory behind them. The rest of the structures clearly DOES NOT BLEND on the real thing as the examples Deekay have posted.
yeah, I remember the annoying interlaces in deus ex machina aswell, ugh...
Dk, ok. this is a subjective matter, I prefer "rasterized" version, and close it here :)
I'm glad the scene finally is catching up. :-)
Some of you guys could rant on all you want about flickering hurting your eyes, but to be frank - hires (1x1 pixel) interlace are mostly not even visible on the real thing, unlike f.ex IFLI.
a) c64 pixels aren't square at all but stretched about 33% vertically (draw a block of 20x20 chars on the screen and use your ruler!)
