 |
| ||||||||||||
Oh My God! I'm confused whit this x_x
Haha, Very nice work. Congratulations. Favorited ;)
Wow, looks very great and mindfuck! 
The work with the animation is greater then the static one, but the static is also very great.
The border is awesome.
Congrats for the piece. 5/5
That looks nice! I agree with Calv about the transparency. Why is it so... unwanted anyway? Just wondering.
Anyway nice piece of pixels there again, keep it coming! 5/5 
Oh, you did end up having to remove the water, bummer. It still rocks, though. It looks sort of desolate now.
Thanks for comments, and thanks mods for letting me keep the preview.
I like what you've done with the piece. I've always been a fan of escher-style imagery.
And while I think using transparency is still pixel art (you're still putting the pixels down) you will never win the argument here so, take my word for it, don't waste your time.
really like how it goes up but i also seems like a straight path on the ground. good work.
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome. Looking good even without water. 
This subject has come up many times before. Using transparency opens a whole can of worms for us so we don't allow it. Not that anything is really wrong with it but we just no longer allow this.
The trans water effect CAN be made using opaque pixels and when done garners lots of praise and respect from others.
I guess that makes sense, sounds a bit anal though, I didn't realise this site was that strict. How about if I write that I used a layer transparency in the description? I would like to show this piece on the site and the whole effect would be ruined if it didn't have the transparency.
problem is that basically using a semi transparent layer/brush generates an scale of colors that are the result of an automated process, this is , even when you hand pixeled the whole scene, the transparency of the waterfall wasn't really done by your hand. it may sound rubish, but to an extent, the point is that you should be able to generate the same effect without the use of an automated process.
omg omg omg this is fantastic. Everything is great! I can also say that you are awesome at making those Escher things.
The entire animation is great and I like every bit of it.
The small details are also there like the little bubble there, the shades, the stones in the water or the dripping from a crack or not to mention the great frame.
I don't like the statues very much. I think they look to flat. But it's a 5/5! Great work!
Ok that's fair enough, but what's the difference in using brush transparency and layer transparency? I did all the work on a real paint-program too. Im not sure what you mean by automation?
If I take the transparency off there are only 18 colours including the transparent background. 
I salute your creativity and willingness to experiment with pixelart, and had you designed this with a preset 16 color palette (which it looks like at first glance) and just used some brush-transparency in a real paint-program for the water effect; I would not have any complaints....but these 42 colors just sings of automation.
Great piece but I have to side with Lollige. Keep the good stuff coming though!...
Are you not allowed to use transparency? I still hand pixelled everything. Just used the transparency to make it see through. I didn't use any other effects or tricks or anything.
It is wonderful calv! However, I am not sure if because of the transparancy used this is suitable for PJ...
Yeah, I made the tile up, then laid it and altered the corners. Then I changed the opacity to to make it look like water.
you used semi transparent layers to create the effect of water, do you?
I think it'd be very awesome if you made the whole waterfall piece (buildigns, people, etc.) but it's very cool as it is! i love the border.
Excellent!