Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in - nap
CSDb User Forums


Forums > CSDb Entries > Release id #237341 : Future Ninja
2023-12-05 11:22
hedning

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618
Release id #237341 : Future Ninja

User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 5 December 2023
Frostbyte: I think it was that it ended up as #3 in a compo and also was the #1 pic on csdb for a while. People also cheered for it on fb etc. ”Amazing”, ”outstanding”, etc. Then artists react I’d say.

User Comment
Submitted by Moloch [PM] on 5 December 2023
10!

User Comment
Submitted by Frostbyte [PM] on 5 December 2023
Whereas I think it is great that this picture finally sparked a serious conversation about possibly clarifying the scene's unwritten rulebook what comes to declaring use of sources and converters and providing workstages, I do get Oswald's point, D-Mage may just not know about the unwritten rules.

What I find a bit strange is that THIS particular image sparked the conversation, as there are many well established, praised talents in the scene who so blatantly obviously use online sources for their images as well as very heavily rely on advanced converters, and never provide workstages, but with them most of the scene remains silent. Maybe it's about which group you're in? ;)

User Comment
Submitted by Bob [PM] on 5 December 2023
I am not an artist.. but I can't help it.. I like this image.. and it would do great in a demo too...

User Comment
Submitted by rexbeng [PM] on 5 December 2023
Most artists wouldn't care about AI; it's just another tool added to the plethora of tools that over the years made the random pics we are used to look at, be less and less 'art'. If it's just 'joes' you're after with your creations, say on youtube, why spent hundreds of hours to make a video about something specific that interests you, when a random video with cats will generate a hell of a lot more appreciation and views and need just a fraction of the time to make? Would an artist opt to make videos with more of the same cats for Youtube?

Work stages is a joke when the talk is about digital images, I trust anybody can understand that. :)

User Comment
Submitted by Carrion [PM] on 5 December 2023
6 months ago at X'23 I was giving the presentation about my process of creating C64 images. I showed how I use Photoshop to cut and paste pieces of images (found on Internet) to produce some quick results that I later take to Timanthes for long process of detailing. Also a big part of my presentation was my thoughts on using AI and how it is a huge temptation on using it as a shortcut to create C64 gfx, and how I feel tempted to use it (and I probably will).
What I stated back then was that every time I use AI I will inform about it in release notes or CSDB comments. I also declared that I will include workstages and/or the source .psd files and references if used.

The feedback after my presentation was very good and together with few pixel-artists we had really interesting conversation after it.
And... 6 months later... nothing happened.

Partially my fault because a) I wasn't that active this year, b) the images I created for CD demos haven't used AI and but...
c) seams to me that majority of people don't really care about AI and workstages and source files.
Or do they? Do you care?

So... IMO this conversation we have here is a great opportunity to maybe start a new "tradition" to share the references, AI prompts/models used, .psd files, workstages etc to make it fully transparent. I also strongly believe that this will be also a great way to share knowledge, learn, and have even more fun.
What you say? Who's with me?

One more thing regarding this and similar converted pics. It worries me same way as Hein, The Sarge, and others already said, but hey, let people do what gives them fun of using C64. Is it converting, pixeling, wireing. Scene will judge anyway.

User Comment
Submitted by 4gentE [PM] on 5 December 2023
Perhaps y'all remember what I was saying here when I was told I was being a drama queen.
https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=12&topicid=158776&showallposts=1
Just sayin...

User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote [PM] on 5 December 2023
@The Sarge 'Maybe he did all by himself?'

Lol! ..absolutely not.

User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 5 December 2023
For me it’s about honesty. Do what you like, AI or not, but when you are competing in a compo: hell no. It’s also obvious to me that most joes (Sorry Joe) can’t tell a convert from original work, which must be frustrating for most artists.

Using converted AI instead of converting a googled pic also makes the source impossible to find, which adds to the frustration. Even work stages could be forged ofc, working backwards. I am sure that already happened somewhere. It’s sad all of it.

User Comment
Submitted by The Sarge [PM] on 5 December 2023
I think it would be great if D-Mage could step in and add to the conversation. That would maybe stop the speculation of how this was made. Maybe he did all by himself? But until he doesn’t we will not know.

Looking at the image it’s obvious for me it’s converted. You see it in the mathematical dithering that is all over the image. For some reason the author decided to enhance the eyebrows so those are most surely hand pixeled but the rest of the image is probably not.
IF D-mage made this image from scratch by himself, ie painted the original on another medium and then used a converter to make it appear on the C64 then it’s fine. It’s still not hand pixeled but he is the author of the art. It’s just that the conversion itself takes away a bit of the “magic” of the pixel art. And it sure is a shortcut.

And this is what it all boils down to, shortcuts.
If you use AI or someone else art then it is a major shortcut. It’s such a big shortcut that you can’t really compare this to art that is done by someone by hand, from a life long period of training the mind and hand to realise your vision and ideas. It takes a lot of effort making those hand made pixel art that people will hopefully remember and appreciate. For me it’s up to 40-50 hours per image and maybe a week or two trying to come up with an idea that I think would work. Before that its has been a life full of failed attempts. The life of an artist, being it code, music or visuals. It’s all the same. We try, we fail, we fail better. Then comes AI and converting and cuts all this down to 10 minutes of work.
Of course we get upset, sad and worried.

For me C64 art is where my cradle was and hopefully it will be with me until I die. So I hate to see it devolve into soulless AI art.

So please be careful in your judgment of images.

User Comment
Submitted by Hate Bush [PM] on 5 December 2023
if it's done by the supposed creator AND converted by AI - then finished by hand - i see no problem with this.
i don't ask if a musician tapped the tune into tracker (which would be correct, true, scene-wise and so on) or did the whole tune in DAW as MIDI and then imported into tracker of choice (which would be... spitting on those who swear by first option?)

User Comment
Submitted by Hein [PM] on 5 December 2023
I really hope AI conversions don't become the norm in graphics competitions. I can't keep up with that. :) Anyhow, as a motive this isn't that exciting either.

User Comment
Submitted by Flex [PM] on 5 December 2023
I think people are worried. It's been in the air for some time now and in general, converts / AI at this level brings up big questions about the future.
Still, myself not even being the "spokesman" on this (emotional) topic I'm after some more transparency and if there's any spit on this work, that's only there for the method and the end result being this good. This might be hard to accept and I pretty much understand from the point of true craftsmanship.

User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ [PM] on 5 December 2023
I'd rather see a decent convert than another half-assed "hand pixelled" image.

What *really* stinks are those half-assed converts that don't even look good.

User Comment
Submitted by Oswald [PM] on 5 December 2023
if your work is spit on, then you wouldnt feel anything personally ?

User Comment
Submitted by Flex [PM] on 4 December 2023
@oswald, I see nothing personal here. I'm hoping this launched compo will work as an eye-opener for the scene as it seems to me now that conversion / AI business is starting to gain too much ground.
I think converting is ok but trying to make people believe something else is not.
As a multicolour picture this one is ace.

User Comment
Submitted by Oswald [PM] on 4 December 2023
this is d-mage's first pic after 30 years, probably he is not familiar with the current unwritten rules in the scene, maybe more patience would have been better instead of making laughing stock of him in the form of a compo.
2023-12-05 11:31
Frostbyte

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 174
@hedning Fair, I suppose, however the compo rules in this case did NOT state that the work needs to be originally by the artist, and hand pixeled. And as stated, D-Mage may not have known about the modern scene etiquette.

Whereas there have been many gfx compo entries (even winning ones!) in the past where it has been made clear that the work has to be original, and conversions are not allowed, and non-originals (sometimes even touched-up conversions) have been right at the top anyway, and the artists have been well aware of the rules but broken them anyway to their own benefit. This is the scene double standards I'm trying to bring into the conversation. It's easy to slash someone who is not so well established and networked, but the great artists are a little bit untouchable.

As an observer (as I cannot draw a stick man) even great conversions, or hand pixeled images that reference work by others are great, but as with music, if you're doing a cover of someone else's work, this should be honestly declared. Deliberately leaving this crucial information out is nothing but a dick move, IMHO.
2023-12-05 11:34
hedning

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618
<Post edited by hedning on 5/12-2023 11:35>

Related discussion from 2011 about wirejobs, conversions, and honesty in compos: https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1
2023-12-05 11:35
Electric

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39
What comes to the ‘unwritten rules' of the scene – these rules were there 30 years ago already. More developed scenes on Amiga / PC required workstages in gfx compos, the entries were shown untitled and ones without workstages were disqualified, judged commonly as ’rip-offs’ and artists behind as ‘lamers’.

So, my question is: is the scene turning all ‘lame’ suddenly? You should respect creativity, not cheating.

However, workstage requirement on C64 is relatively new thing. Back in the days it was seen as such a weak platform lacking the fancy tools and shortcusts that just getting something realistic done was a miracle. However, if something seemed ‘wired’ it was not really appreciated even during early 90s. In general 80s and 90s were merely technical periods in C64 gfx - using references was still popular and accepted (due the mentioned difficulties). Wiring was still NOT accepted, as I already wrote.

It’s true that the workstages can also be generated afterwards, with skilled gfxer and AI backing even without much effort. Haven’t seen such a lamer yet but there probably are few out there waiting for the right momemnt.

In all this is a delicate issue. To me this recent burst of conversions equals to someone ripping code from someone else – behind every googled photo or image there is an author. If you compare this with a ‘cover’ of a tune it’s not really a match as (said in the discussion already) with current tools conversion can be made in few minutes without ANY artistic effort. That means a copy, not a cover. Suppose you can do that for SID too, but for gfx that has become just sooo easy.

I personally don’t have anything against conversions or use of AI in general. These both can bring new things and techniques in C64 art when it comes to use of colours, dithering techniques, colour mixing etc. However, when used this should be clearly stated by the one doing the job… and when this is informed it should be also stated by the moderators wherever this piece is shown (such as FB groups). And (repeating myself) if references are used even for PhotoShop collage those should be mentioned of course. This is just a matter of behaving and good manners (which scene usually so proudly lacks).

However, what’s the most important and sad thing here to me is that presenting converted graphics as ‘own’ really hurts the scene itself. For me it’s taking the ‘fun’ out of it. For a newcomer who’d like to do his/her own pixel art this is everything else but inviting – ending up behind wired stuff in compos will most likely just give bad vibes, make him/her move to other more creative platforms OR go into wiring too (’What the heck - it’s approved!’).

I’ve got one wish for the CSDB moderators (if you ever hear me): could you add a category of “C64 Converted Graphics” to the types of the release? Now the people doing conversions have to upload them among hand-made gfx which is part of the problem.
2023-12-05 11:43
hedning

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618
Sander wrote this, for me, important post 2011 ( https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1 ). It's nice to read it again:

"It doesn't feel good to see some people play down on the importance of the subject. Real pixel artists DO care.

The following text is from the Pixelation forums, an active pixel art community with a lot of talented people, like Helm and Ptoing. Which shows how this subject is being dealt with by people who're serious about pixel art.

Quoting pixelation forums rules
Rule 2: Do not rip artwork. Ever!

Always clearly state what your references were in making a piece. If you sketched in pencil, color-reduced to 1bit and then went to work on it, okay. Ways like this are completely accepted and nobody's going to shout at your for it, but it's good to know anyway. If you stole somebody else's artwork, 1bitted it and then submitted it for critique, not okay. If caught red-handed, by moderators or users, and the case is clear you ripped, you will be banned and forgotten forever. Other similar instances of fraudulent behaviour like posting other people's artwork without permission (regardless of them being edited or not) or jobs without delivering the promised payment will reap similar rewards.

Rule 3: Post only pixel art.

Now this is a bit of a controversial subject, but it hopefully can be cleared out at least so we can go on with our business here: Pixel Art, is art where there's specific attention paid to the fine manipulation of picture elements. It deals with the informative quality of specific, single pixels. If the art you're about to post has not been pixel-pushed on that level, don't bother. Automatic AA, soft brushes, filters, smudge tools, all are indicative of index-painting, or at least dirty-tooling, but do not always mean your art will not benefit from pixel-level critique. If you've made something using some of these tools and then you're able to reign the piece in by optimizing the palette into using the best possible amount of colors, went in and pushed single pixels until everything is right, then it's probable we'll be able to talk about your art and how it can be made better. Always be clear of how you made things, only post concept art when it's relative to a pixel-art piece you've made and never never try to decieve us. As above, workstages and process animations are optional, but always welcome.


One could argue these 'pixelation forum' guys are way to anal about things, but i feel they're completely on spot. (as for comparison: The CSDb crack standards).

Quoting Digger
Now, the trick is how do you squeeze thousands (if not million) colours palette into 11 colours (hires/multi char mode) and still preserve the high quality of the original image.(...)

This reasoning is beyond me... This makes it sound the compo was about doing the most optimized conversions.

Quoting Celtic
and lastly: besides 4 or 5 extremely gifted pixellers like mermaid and i think STE , I think loads of people use this method. I am wondering who would like to claim or state that they never do this r have done it.

Quoting Digger
I (sadly) think the golden era of hand pixelled gfx is gone forever due to at least two reasons:
1. Life is faster – people are spending too much time playing with useless apps on their mobiles hoping to make their life actions more efficient (= waste of time and illusion IMHO but that's another topic) ;-)
2. Effort/reward ratio – no way you can hand pixel 2 screen pic in 12-14 hrs, even with limited palette and sophisticated pixelling tools (brushes, dither box, etc) – and it took me similar time to code the editor (http://c64.blog2t.net/slixed). I mean it's A LOT of time in REAL LIFE (yes, we're no longer in our teens).
3. There are great conversion tools (i.e. Timathes), which we haven't had in late '80s/early '90s – you HAD to pixel by hand (or use "analogue" conversion methods)

I'll give you the only reason - it's this attitude. And that attitude has become too common in the scene.

I feel such an attitude is disrespectful to pixel artists like Mermaid, Archmage, Saehn and quite a few others. Realizing these people could be participating in the same competition, and doing original artwork.

I'm very pleased to see this discussion rise again, and for the first time - things seems to change a little.

(Please note, this is not about the double screen competition in particular. Props to Veto And Enthusi for taking action regarding this discussion.)"
2023-12-05 11:52
4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119
Quote:
behind every googled photo or image there is an author

Also, if I may add, behind every AI generated picture, there are also authors whose work the LLM AI had been "trained" on without consent.
2023-12-05 13:52
rexbeng

Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30
Is this a discussion about the graphics branch of the C64 scene in general, or is it just about curating compo entries?

If it's the latter, the solution is obvious. Curate the compos. Have a jury of well established pixellers who are able to weight all aspects in a submitted picture; originality, composition, technique etc. Have some semantic theme/topic that the participator needs to think of how to handle instead of just pick, say, the whatever trending movie theme. I'm sure there's many ideas to try.

If it's a general thing, then I believe you should let it go wherever it is that it goes on it's own. If you start pulling the string of banning methods and practices, it's hard to decide where to stop. I mean, one could very well say that you should even ban the practice Carrion very honestly described for his own work. Honesty from the creator's side is the only valid way here.

But, hey, I'm just a visitor here. :)
2023-12-05 14:10
CopAss

Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 3
solution: record the entire process on video.
thesarge:
https://youtu.be/MVBo8oykpEQ?si=IHIZV6lk8HeQZjaO
me :)
https://youtu.be/fLU7HeTB7c0?si=7wYxw8yUXN1sWgXJ
2023-12-07 01:24
F7sus4

Registered: Apr 2013
Posts: 113
Quote:
Most artists wouldn't care about AI; it's just another tool added to the plethora of tools that over the years made the random pics we are used to look at, be less and less 'art'.


Does the evolution of tools tend to minimize user input while leaning towards task automation? In many cases, yes.

Is the composer using a modern synthesizer in 100% the author of the final effect, or is it a compromise between his input and a prefabricated technological component that is able to produce sounds on its own, which he only modifies or adjusts according to his needs?

In the late 90s, using Photoshop was considered "lame" because of brushes, blur, and other effects that demoscene artists had previously created by hand, pixel by pixel. Ultimately, Photoshop became an established standard as everyone accepted the inevitable change mentally. It was a process, but the same argument was made - that it was no longer a "skill" but a tool doing the job for instead of the artist.

The question is, is AI an enemy of creativity or a tool that could ultimately be included in the general artistic consensus as a form of automation? If so, aren't we currently facing a 2023 iteration of "No Copy/No Photoshop" dilemma? If not, where to set the line between the author's own creative force and his (ab)use of available technology? How much input does it take for a piece to be considered "your own"? And who's to decide?
2023-12-07 05:10
Hate Bush

Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 456
we're deliberately obsolete anyway, we may as well go full stone age: perhaps it's time for serious live compos at parties. have a blank project and create from there, in front of the audience. let's say two hours for musicians, four for graphicians, external tools not allowed, outputs on bigscreen next to each other, Saturday until 18:00.
(far-fetching your ass XD)
that would be as clear as it gets - with lack of masterpieces (to say it mildly) as the only downside. but if it's all about pixel-pushing and register-altering skills, such lack shouldn't mean much.
2023-12-07 07:50
Bitbreaker

Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 501
Quoting F7sus4
Quote:

In the late 90s, using Photoshop was considered "lame" because of brushes, blur, and other effects that demoscene artists had previously created by hand, pixel by pixel. Ultimately, Photoshop became an established standard as everyone accepted the inevitable change mentally. It was a process, but the same argument was made - that it was no longer a "skill" but a tool doing the job for instead of the artist.


I think this compares very different things. As for coding, Macroassemblers made life easier by introducing macros, labels, code could be compiled to targets that could be freely moved around. Nowadays also crossassemblers compile on different machines. That is what one has nowadays for coding and still it consumes vast amounts of time and needs pretty much skills to get the best out of it. Lately out of fun i asked an AI about a code snippet and what could be optimized. It returned utter crap as a solution that would nopt even work and it tried to convince me that it is a bad idea to use illegal opcodes.
As for GFX tools on a PC enable me to make use of fine mouse movements compared to joystick back in the days and maybe a few brushes with dither patterns to get rid of tedious repetetive work. Still i need a vast amount of time to ponder about a motif, to sketch, to fill, to arrange, to rearrange, burst out in hate multiple times due to the harsh restrictions and trying to stick to some kind of blocky scheme. For my case i'd say it is more than 100 hours per pic and yes, i am slow. Therefore there's graphicians where you can tell from the pic without a tag, who's the author.
So what would be the correct comparision is, that an AI would give me a readymade demo effect as an .asm file, so it does with GFX and that is nothing i consider creative or technically skilled.
There's no reason to find excuses for producing mass-shit.
What i also hate is, how some of the worksteps look like, basically i sometimes see pictures that start with a gray empty screen and over the four worksteps a perfectly done picture is painted in 4 portions, no single pixel changed in the previous sections, no rearrangement happening over the whole process. Bah, i could rant on for hours.....
 
... 57 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
 
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
Quetzal/Chrome
The Human Co../Maste..
void256
Adder/Triad
Guests online: 101
Top Demos
1 Next Level  (9.7)
2 Mojo  (9.7)
3 13:37  (9.7)
4 Coma Light 13  (9.7)
5 Edge of Disgrace  (9.7)
6 Aliens in Wonderland  (9.6)
7 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
8 Uncensored  (9.6)
9 No Bounds  (9.6)
10 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
Top onefile Demos
1 Layers  (9.6)
2 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
3 Party Elk 2  (9.6)
4 Copper Booze  (9.6)
5 TRSAC, Gabber & Pebe..  (9.5)
6 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
7 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
8 It's More Fun to Com..  (9.5)
9 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)
10 Birth of a Flower  (9.5)
Top Groups
1 Nostalgia  (9.4)
2 Oxyron  (9.3)
3 Booze Design  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 SHAPE  (9.3)
Top Musicians
1 Rob Hubbard  (9.7)
2 Stinsen  (9.7)
3 Jeroen Tel  (9.6)
4 Linus  (9.6)
5 psych858o  (9.6)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2024
Page generated in: 0.091 sec.