There was some interest in the 40kb thread on how to make interesting low-color graphics.
I posted a few images I did up in photoshop. It takes a certain kind of background to understand this kind of stuff well.
Having grown up with systems like the C64 and Amiga and early PCs, this stuff is how it HAD to be done in the past.
Low color creativity.
effectgames.com
The things that you can do with low-color are very impressive.
More info:
gdcvault.com
Other urls found in this thread:
pc98.org
t.umblr.com
s84i.imgup.net
i.4cdn.org
4p8.com
twitter.com
...
32 color poo in loo
16 color king crimson
16 color 50% diffusion
I really like the aesthetics of this
Somewhat related
...
BEST girl
このセメンデモンはだれ?
...
2 Color.
...
GameBoy Color Palette
a e s t h e t i c
Early VGA 16-color eroge was godlike.
If you like this art, do a google image search for PC98 graphics/games
PC98 image repo. lots of hentai games lol
Awww man I have to play some VNs now.
>that snatcher
And which game is this in particular? And is it translated
Do C64 palette.
>there will never be a snatcher sequel
oh?
Thanks for this thread op. It takes me back to a time I was an awkward teen with my first computer, an Intel 286, and I'd bought several floppy disks worth of images from a shareware seller I found in the ads section of a popular computer magazine.
Most of the images were of things like cars and landscapes and stuff. I was just excited to see images on the computer screen.
Some pics though were of swimsuit models, some of which you could see the nipples pointing through. One pic was of a woman completely topless!
You've taken my back to that time and filled my heart with melancholy. I wish i could go back there and live that life again. Have fewer regrets and more confidence in myself.
Anyways, offtopic. But thanks once again.
I'm stuck in the goddamned amiga years.
Well, its more fun than modern shit.
Thank you Floens
Four colors reporting in.
i would destroy that woman
>woman
The original
:3
ITT: People aged 16 discover dithering for the first time
>needing more than a kb
>Sup Forums in charge of dithering
mpv in charge of dithering
oops, I fucked up the rotation
This looks strangely awesome when slightly downscaled in nonlinear light using an undersized tent filter
even better when slightly offset, removes some of the stray pixels
mixed dithering methods
For a sec I thought that was a dick pointing into lain.
8 bits color, not a single fuck was given...
JPEG saved with 0 quality. 4 colors, no artifacts, recompressable infinitely without loss.
Huh. That's weird. I see a little smudge on the edges in browser, but opening it in Photoshop makes it sharp and lossless again.
lol, me too
our mind is corrupted user
chroma subsampling
Underrated
your screenshot looks fucked up on my screen too, but OP's image looks alright
is that because of the resolution or maybe because of Clover version?
is greyscale really 2 color?
>is that because of the resolution or maybe because of Clover version?
it's because whoever programmed that program doesn't know shit about how to downscale images properly
No grayscale is when all the color channels are the same values
there are different methods for instance green may be weighed more but either way Red=Green=Blue
Easiest method is taking the average of the color channels
what software did you use?
Asuka fag BTFO
so dark
5 colors (black, white, red, green, blue)
...
Gimp - Obama hope plugin.
...
imagemagick, GOAT for algorithmic image processing of any kind
mine is faithful to the original, yours is excessively bright
compare against
Yo OP i'm a designer, do you have a collection of photoshop palettes i can use for generating this shite?
I could go search but i cannot be fucked collecting them
same
Can you run this picture through it? I'm okay if you make the picture smaller if you need to, too..
I would've done this myself but I don't have photoshop on my computer.
convert i.4cdn.org
(crop due to small uplink)
thanks man
Thank you too!
The aesthetic is unreal; it brings me years, years back!
i'm using imagemagick as well, but i'm not terribly familiar with it
what arguments did you use for yours?
also, if you know, how do i make >2 color images with the same level of dither as the 2 color output? by default it seems to really prefer to just clamp to the nearest palette color
pic related, notice how the 4-color version looks 'flatter' than the 2-color version as a result
ahem, pic related
here is a 4 bit
8 colors is the lowest you can use to accurately represent a color image
Have you seen the other versions of that image? (night, dawn)
I don't think I have..
The dawn one is probably awesome.
>what arguments did you use for yours?
convert original.jpg -colorspace RGB -channel R -evaluate multiply .2126 -channel G -evaluate multiply .7152 -channel B -evaluate multiply 0.0722 +channel -separate -compose add -flatten -set colorspace RGB -dither FloydSteinberg -remap map.pgm dither.png
map.pgm is my palette: (here a 2x1 image containing only black and white, but feel free to customize)
P2
2 1
255
0 255
This is a bit longer than strictly necessary, since I also made sure to calculate the luminance in linear light.
If you wanted, it could be as simple as convert original.jpg -colorspace RGB -remap map.pgm dither.png with only small deviations.
(If you leave out -colorspace RGB then it will dither in gamma light, which produces an image that is very overly bright)
How do I make these?
I'd be willing to bet you could get by with just 4 (RGBK) if you have a smart enough error diffusion algorithm (one that diffuses total error across all channels)
i found setting -colorspace made a difference just a moment ago
not the channel manipulation stuff though, took me long enough to figure out how ffmpeg works 'internally', imagemagick still eludes me somewhat
to do anything advanced in these types of programs, you need to know what's happening behind the scenes at each argument, unlike basic programs where the argument order might not even matter
yours is too dark though. any gamma correction increases the brightness from yours
at *least* get the brightness right!
?
>yours is too dark
mine on top, yours on bottom, original in center
It's a lot better inverted
yes?
Your shitty image viewer is downscaling wrong
Thank you Floens 2
yours is too bright, I inserted a brightened version of the original for comparison
picture taken with the closest camera within grabbing distance
Search up "imperial boy"
Sup Forums thumbnailer: wrong
gimp: wrong
icecat: wrong
chromium: wrong
correct downscaling is really cool and all, but nothing common seems to do so
>tornado
god tier taste
Same
downscaled to 100x pixels with ImageMagick
>Sup Forums thumbnailer: wrong
configuration error
>gimp: wrong
configuration error (set it to work in linear colorspaces), but GIMP is retarded at colorspaces in general
>icecat/chromium
both horsecock, what did you expect from a browser?
this is not me, pic related is what I get if I exaggerate gamma also
I know what you're getting at but your dithers are overboard
>Failed to show image, out of memory
Wow, I can even open those 10000x10000 on Clover but not a 1.4mb gif.
>downscaled to 100x pixels with ImageMagick
notice how Sup Forums visibly fucks up the gamma in the thumbnail even on this small image.
Sup Forums thumbnails are really not a good way to compare images. view them at full size (100% scaling, no up or downscaling) if you want to be sure
Wtf
>what did you expect from a browser?
better, really, i mean, normalfags probably view more imagery in their browser than any other program
and i mean, c'mon, google even bought the vpx codec, surely they can figure out image scaling in their own browser
what's the reason for it? do you know why they all get it wrong?
i only have a vague understanding of gamma in digital images
>better, really
good luck with that. I mean browsers still turn this into this when downscaling
(pic related is imagemagick for comparison)
>what's the reason for it?
this particular problem is caused by downscaling in nonlinear (companded) light rather than linear light.
To downscale in linear light requires two extra conversions (sRGB -> RGB before downscaling, and RGB -> sRGB after downscaling), so a naive programmer who is not aware of this simple trick will fail to implement it. In general, whatever browsers do is whatever's easiest to implement (and requires the least knowledge).
Note that this only affects downscaling, not upscaling. For upscaling, you actually actively want to be using nonlinear light - since the linear light conversion amplifies the characteristic ringing artifacts from upscaling. The reason it's relevant for downscaling is because when downscaling, you are mixing multiple pixel values into a combined result. Whenever you mix colors, doing it in linear vs nonlinear light is a huge fucking difference
Since light in the real world is linear (that's what pretty much linear means - as in the real world), mixing colors in linear light causes them to behave as if you had just mixed together two different light sources in real life. Mix black and white evenly in linear light and you will get a color that is exactly half as bright on your display (physically)
This is why linear light is important for dithering as well. A white-black alternating checkerboard, on your display, produces about half as much light as a fully white image. So in other words, it will match the color that is exactly halfway between black and white in *linear* light, which is very d ifferent from nonlinear/sRGB.
>So in other words, it will match the color that is exactly halfway between black and white in *linear* light, which is very d ifferent from nonlinear/sRGB.
Simple demonstration
Left is a value that is coded as 127 (50% in sRGB) everywhere
Middle is a perfect black/white checkerboard
Right is a value that is coded as linear 50% (coded as 187 in sRGB)
Notice how from a distance and when unscaled, the middle and the right are indistinguishable to the eye. However, in the Sup Forums thumbnail (and when downscaling with non-linear programs), the brightnesses suddenly change
In a program (like imagemagick, mpv, madVR, etc.) that does downscaling in linear light, downscaling the image will *preserve* the apparent brightness of the image perfectly.
Also notice that brightness is also preserved when upscaling (usually)
>Notice how from a distance and when unscaled, the middle and the right are indistinguishable to the eye.
Oh, and assumed a reasonably well-calibrated monitor. If they deviate somewhat, your monitor is not well-calibrated