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?
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.
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”
I liked it. Immediately recognizable but yet unrecognizable. I don’t know about 8 bit or effort or whatever, but thought is was great.
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.
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.
Could you tell from the pixels?
…or was it the name of the graphic? 
[quote=“OtherMichael, post:19, topic:18889”]
Unless you have a PS demonstration[/quote]
I agree, but now I’m intrigued. Using this original (a whopping 6000x3274 version from Wiki) I made this in 3 standard functions:
Image Size > 27px wide, nearest neighbour (hard edges)
Image Size > 1000px wide, nearest neighbour (herd edges)
Hue/Saturation > Saturation +60 / Lightness +30 [IIRC]
PS: I chose 27px wide cause that’s how many squares of colour are across the original.
