[1]:https://civitai.com/models/875790/amiga-deluxepaint-or-fluxd
(From page HTML source) <!-- ******** HELLO OLD COMPUTER USERS ******** --> <!-- This site is designed to be viewable at 640x480 resolution or higher in any color mode in Netscape/IE 3 or any better browser, so if you're using an LC III or something, you're welcome. In fact, I really hope you are using such a machine, because limiting the site to this level of simplicity wouldn't be worth it unless someone is. Please let me know if you are using an old computer to visit the site so I know it is worth it to someone to maintain this compatibility. I do apologize for the one javascript error that you may get on each page load, but I don't expect it to cause any crashes. The major exception to all of this is Netscape 4. That thing sucks. -->
Does anyone even remember why Netscape 4 was bad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator#:~:text=Thi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave...
Software outfit founded by a French guy, as hinted by the drawing with Paris visible ...
(Those "view from ..." were plentiful at the time)
Take the first one, "acius.png", at 84,326 bytes. If you losslessly scale back to the original size (1/4th) and convert to 1-bit NetPBM, it's 51,851 bytes, without compression. I thought that was remarkable.
$ oxipng -o max --strip all -avZ --fast acius.png
Processing: acius.png
2304x2880 pixels, PNG format
8-bit Indexed (2 colors), non-interlaced
IDAT size = 84251 bytes
File size = 84326 bytes
Transformed image to 1-bit Indexed (2 colors), non-interlaced
Trying filter None with zopfli, zi = 15
Found better result:
zopfli, zi = 15, f = None
IDAT size = 24466 bytes (59785 bytes decrease)
file size = 24541 bytes (59785 bytes = 70.90% decrease)
24541 bytes (70.90% smaller): acius.png
But no, it's just how that sort of black & white shading looks when you scroll past it - amazing effect!
Anyway, this reminded me of that. Making these pictures in anything but the tools of the time wouldn't just change them, they'd be totally different artworks. The medium is part of the artwork itself.
To me they look horribly pixelated and at least some would improve aesthetically a lot for me with a higher resolution.
(A pixel-art specific upscaling filter would mitigate that issue, of course.)
But if you folks enjoy them, go for it. Otherwise taste is subjective I think.
Another example from the early '90s is MARS.COM (1) by Tim Clarke (1993). Just 6 kilobytes and 30+ fps on a 12MHZ 286 (2).
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSjpIyMt0k
2. https://github.com/matrix-toolbox/MARS.COM/blob/main/MARS.AS...
Was this the artist’s vision, or were they simply making the best of the tools they had?
Old video games come to mind. The box art would be drastically different than the look of the game. The box art was the vision, the game was what they ended up with after compromises due to the hardware of the day. I think it’s only been in the last decade or so that some game makers have truly been able to realize the visions they had 40 years ago.
For example, Bach's music was shaped by the fact that the harpsichord had no sustain. The piano changed that, but "upscaling" Bach's work to take advantage of this new technology would destroy them. You use the new technology to play them as they were written for the old. The beauty comes through despite the change.
https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/macgrid
Incidentially /r/VintagePixelArt often has discussions about this sort of thing.
So maybe for some values of "great." Maybe.
The constraints of the original Mac and MacPaint have resulted in an art form specific to the time and place.
aidos•4h ago
At the end of the article they mention digging in to the Amiga scene. If you want to feel old, Deluxe Paint turns 40 this year. My mates had Amigas (I had an Amstrad) and the computing world just felt full of wonder and promise. It was a magical time of creation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluxe_Paint