Why did artists give up on dithering?

Why did artists give up on dithering?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Aba7VD4h6G4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because 256 colors isn't a limitation anymore.

It's less about the color limitations and more that spritework with solid colors can tend to look really flat.

limitations makes people creative and develop new techniques to overcome limitations

But if there are no limitations they can actually spend the time to create instead of coming up with fixes to said limitations.

>Artists
>Still existing

Name one

>It's less about the color limitations
Dithering is literally faking colors that cannot be displayed with the current system.

We're in the 'we aim for photorealism to hide we can't into art for shit' era.

Dina Abou Karam

Then that's a problem with the artists and not the lack of dithering.

while you are correct to some degree i strongly believe too fast development means less polish to a product
the result is we never reach the pinnacle of the tech being used and makes for mediocre art most of the time

>i strongly believe too fast development means less polish to a product the result is we never reach the pinnacle of the tech being used and makes for mediocre art most of the time
Well, that's capitalism for you. Why aim for 'perfect' when 'good enough' gets you more money anyway.

That's the consumers fault not the companies fault.

The consumer should have some standards. The companies are just behaving rationally.

>Well, that's capitalism for you. Why aim for 'perfect' when 'good enough' gets you more money anyway.
thats exactly the problem, most modern artist/devs either dont care or dont get the time they need to polish whatever they are doing
it used to be a work of passion, for people like them selfs but these days its all about dollar bills

There's no benefit for dithering save for whatever sentimental value you yourself have assigned to it.
No place for dithering in modern art.
Well, let me correct myself - there is - dithering is useful when you are limited by color depth, even today. Photoshop extensively uses dithering for gradients with 24 bit color and gradients look like shit without dithering. But dithering you're describing, dithering with 16 or 256 or whatever colors, that's dead for good.

This.

Sometimes the fixes and workarounds are better than the easy non-limited route.

Having graphical limitations across the platform also encourages developers to set their game apart from the competition through ideas and mechanics. It's why game design flourished in the late 90's and early 00's, only to stagnate when we hit the HD age. My hope is that we'll see another period of innovation once photo-realistic graphics become the standard and not the selling point.

On one hand it was mostly done because of limitations of whatever the game was being run on.

On the other, stuff like op's pic look fantastic and you can tell the artist put a lot of effort into it, almost as if you're really looking out a window into the night, the lit room reflecting back at you from the window peering into the city night.
Shit, I wish most modern games had that much effort put into it.

There absolutely is a benefit, and that it provides texture / granularity to the scene much like film grain. It's why there are directors that still use regular old film vs digital sources.

My hope is that one day we'll see the return of dithering to 2d art forms. I'm tired of the flat shading you see in modern games across the globe.

>The consumer should have some standards.
They do. Too bad most of them have lower standards than you and me would like.

Can we stop with this hipster nostalgia shit?

No mr hipster we shouldn't use outdated technology and methods.

No mr hipster vinyl disks aren't better than digital FLAC.

No mr hipster classic agricultural technology isn't better than conventional agriculture.

I would sacrifice my firstborn if it would rid humanity of this "nostalgia" emotion that is a big fucking thorne in the side of progress and therefore humanity as a whole.

>No mr hipster classic agricultural technology isn't better than conventional agriculture.
Not Sup Forums but I'm going to bite anyway.
There are parts where classic agricultural technology still is superior like natural feeding or not stuffing the livestock with so much antibiotics.
Other than that I mostly agree.

Does anybody know what the devices were called that they used to make animated logos and shit before computers? They had this lossless analog perfection to them that you just don't see today.

>you are a hipster if you like old functional things
nope, there is a reason older tech is often appreciated and still used to this day
so how old are you? something tells me its not even in the twenties

early pc days, sorry. Think Earthbound's battle backgrounds. youtube.com/watch?v=Aba7VD4h6G4

This.
It gives that pleasing sense of depth and craftsmanship careful linework or etchwork does in a traditional illustration, all of which tend to be tragically missing in modern digital illustration. Proper shading as well.

Dude if you have your peers try and push 80s shit on you like "stranger things" vapor wave synth and neon colored shirts for the sole reason that they used to experience that stuff in their childhood you'd also want to kill yourself after a while.

Especially the mentality that everything was "better" back then. As I remember we were 1 wrong move away from nuclear annihilation by the reds back then. And the streets were a lot filthier and more crime ridden.

But we ignore that and only tell how great it is.

If anything I feel like people that didn't experience those ages put them on a pedistal because they don't experienced the downsides.

you didt address the question but goes "muh nukes"
nope we are done here, fuck off

Old things aren't inherently good, but that doesn't mean new things are inherently good either. For example, would you say Windows 10 is inherently better than other versions of Windows because it is newer?

>there is a reason older tech is often appreciated and still used to this day
either nobody care enough about them to innovate or nostalgia.

Yeah, now we have stellar innovations like touchscreens that let you type up to 3 times slower than a keyboard!

Touchscreens are mostly for consumption of content, not for creation or any serious work.

See: Film vs Digital

nobody use the touchscreen to type a serious document tho. even children.

You rang?
Anybody have the newer picture of her? Where she's all fat?

That was only temporarily correct. Eventually the technology will catch up and exceed film while film will always stay the same level.

It was a reduction in quality in exchange for better quality in the future. The same can be said about CRTs and "flat screens" OLEDs seem to finally catch up and even exceed CRTs benefits over a traditional LCD display.

yet only faggot ass hipster and "professional" use them. the whole world give up on that expensive, clunky, uncomfortable shit already. digital has already outdone it in resolution, speed, accuracy, tech and prices and it's only getting better.

Dithering is still used.

no they just create a bunch of stupid shit, see star wars episode 1

Are you perhaps one of the people that think CRTs have no advantage compared to LCDs?

I think you might be retarded. Digital technologies have already 'exceeded' film, the reason why film is used nowadays is for stylistic purposes.

OLEDs and LCDs will never catch up to CRTs because they will never fully replicate the aspects that made CRTs unique. Not unless we have a full suite designed to emulate the various options, scanlines etc that a CRT offers.

Similarly, OLEDs can literally never replicate a Vector monitor.

Read my post about CRTs
You are going into more and more subjective territory. They are only better subjectively if you are a hipster that's the entire point.

Disliking objectively better things because you subjectively like older technology is what makes you a fucking hipster. You are proving the point that hipsters do this shit.

You even say in your post that digital is objectively better.

You really ARE retarded. No one here has been talking about something being objectively better. You're the only dumb faggot here whose painting things in black and white.

In your tiny retarded world, should all artists move to drawing on a digital medium? After all, it's objectively superior compared to drawing on a canvas.

You are baiting me aren't you?

I give up.

Answer the question.

yes they fucking should. it's cheaper in the long run, it doesnt damage the environment as much, it has more options, it motivate research and get artistic people into tech and normal people into art, it is easier to distribute, it is more portable. It is better to themselves and society as a whole.

>it doesnt damage the environment as much
Fuck off, hippie.