frauenfelder at January 8th, 2014 18:43 — #1
pfooti at January 8th, 2014 19:15 — #2
So glad I just now found out about kind of bloop. How did you know I love classical jazz and bitpunk?
stephen_schenck at January 8th, 2014 19:33 — #4
Can we PLEASE STOP using 8-bit as a synonym for "retro game-y" "pixel art" or any number of other things?
The source link didn't refer to the art as 8-bit, so why meaninglessly assign that label yourself?
And I just did a quick-and-dirty (and not at all precise) color count, but there are fewer than 64 colors being used here. If we're using a palette, wouldn't calling it a 6-bit image be more appropriate?
typewriter at January 8th, 2014 19:34 — #5
It’s incredible that he was able to simplify such a complex painting so faithfully
This literally takes just a few clicks in Photoshop.
typewriter at January 8th, 2014 19:36 — #6
Also, 8-bit machines were not capable of displaying the color range seen in this image.
agonist at January 8th, 2014 19:57 — #7
I lived through 8 bit and for about 20 minutes the resurgence of 8 bit was an entertainment but now it needs to leave again so we can have a resurgence of 16 bit for our dose of nostalgia.
bloo at January 8th, 2014 20:04 — #8
Depends upon the 8-bit machine. Atari home computers, with their palette-based system, could, I think, come pretty close.
werkbau at January 8th, 2014 20:16 — #9
When I think "8-bit" I think of the Nintendo NES and the Sega Master System (AKA Famicom and Sega Mk-II)...and they had faaaaar more resolution than this. This is just colorful blocks.
teapot at January 8th, 2014 20:25 — #10
First came to say: this is the laziest art possible.
Then read the comments and thought: stop being nit-picking bastards
Then had a think about it and decided: I'm with the nit-pickers... this should be called by its correct terminology - "(non-isometric) pixel art"
vonbobo at January 8th, 2014 22:42 — #11
I liked it. Immediately recognizable but yet unrecognizable. I don't know about 8 bit or effort or whatever, but thought is was great.
ddq at January 8th, 2014 23:47 — #12
Hey guys, check out this 8-bit art I made!
beep54orama at January 9th, 2014 03:13 — #13
OK, I'll bite. Mona Lisa?
euansmith at January 9th, 2014 07:46 — #14
Whoa... I've obviously been playing too much Minecraft.
chickied at January 9th, 2014 08:05 — #15
I agree. The Kind of Bloop is the star of this post. Diggin' it now.
m477h3w at January 9th, 2014 09:01 — #16
So, what's the difference between this and a low res jpg? wait... you're telling me this is a low res jpg? Oh... this isn't art, it's a copyright violation.
thorzdad at January 9th, 2014 10:24 — #17
Being featured on BoingBoing.
iiiillliiilllii at January 9th, 2014 12:46 — #18
Makes me want to fire up the Maniac Mansion.
othermichael at January 9th, 2014 13:44 — #19
It may literally take just a few clicks in Photoshop to pixellate an image, but to get one that still looks and feels like the original takes more than a few clicks.
You know, just like taking a good photo takes just a single click. Excluding all those other clicks that got thrown away.
Unless you have a PS demonstration that shows the above is readily done using standard functions requiring no configuration...
eschatonic at January 9th, 2014 15:20 — #20
Let's not forget the legal kerfuffle that Kind of Bloop's album cover caused:
Andy Baio was sued for $150k in statutory damage and legal fees, and $25k in DMCA violations.
He settled for $32k. That's absurd for a $9k kickstarter.
teapot at January 9th, 2014 23:42 — #21
EVERYTHING. You question makes me sad, especially considering their site has very high res versions for download.
2560x1440 is low res? I wish Shutterstock thought 2560x1440 was low res!
Also: It is art... just lazy art. It's also definitely not copyright violation.
Words: they mean things.
next page →