8-bit version of Hopper's Nighthawks


1 Like

So glad I just now found out about kind of bloop. How did you know I love classical jazz and bitpunk?


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?


“It’s incredible that he was able to simplify such a complex painting so faithfully”

This literally takes just a few clicks in Photoshop.

1 Like

Also, 8-bit machines were not capable of displaying the color range seen in this image.


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.

Depends upon the 8-bit machine. Atari home computers, with their palette-based system, could, I think, come pretty close.

1 Like

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.

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”

1 Like

I liked it. Immediately recognizable but yet unrecognizable. I don’t know about 8 bit or effort or whatever, but thought is was great.


Hey guys, check out this 8-bit art I made!


OK, I’ll bite. Mona Lisa?

Whoa… I’ve obviously been playing too much Minecraft.

I agree. The Kind of Bloop is the star of this post. Diggin’ it now.

1 Like

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.

Being featured on BoingBoing.

Makes me want to fire up the Maniac Mansion.

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…

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.

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.