8-bit version of Hopper's Nighthawks

Could you tell from the pixels?

…or was it the name of the graphic? :stuck_out_tongue:

[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.

To add to what you’re saying. I know of no 8 bit systems that could display that image. All of them had serious limits not just on the colors they could use but also on how many they could use at the same time and in the same area.

In others words it’s not an 8-bit image. It’s just a pixelized image

yeah, but the “original” pixellated version has the lonely atmosphere of the painting, wheras this does not. There’s more going on. We both use Photoshop – how often do you tweak the settings in a filter to get what you want? If you discount filter tweaks – it’s only a few clicks. But after years of tweaking, you’ve also learned how to tweak/click less. A 5 year old could take a photo like Ansel Adams, but it’s more likely that Ansel Adams could take lots of photos by Ansel Adams.

Hey, it’s nice to see an empirical test!

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.