This 16 colour ST LOW res title demo screen was finished this year.
Hope this time, after 8 pixel pieces rejected it will please,..
I've use several times png format of photoshop you're right ! i'll take care of this.
I really don't because that was created by Mod Hatch. Be careful with png output because if you don't know for sure you might be getting png24 instead of png8 output and the diff is huge. This could be your problem??? I don't use your apps or that plugin but I do pixel with Photoshop most often and the default for Photoshop png output is png24. I output by going thru the 'save for web' tab so I can choose the png8 option when I do make pngs...I find gifs friendlier and use that out of habit to bypass the madness >.<
btw, I am a tablet/stylus pixeller and sometimes my pen will be at 99% opacity and messes everything up.
I have atari pi1 ictures converted in png with the plugin degas with photoshop,
like this one
Thank you for the link.
I've test 3 pics. Do you know how are determinated transparency / opacity in this checker ?
Thanks for your comment Carrion.
You said : "If you pixel for retro machines like ST or C64 sometimes it really helps to get a result on real machine (especially with limited gfx modes"
I'm glad to read this for someon on PJ. Retro pixeling is a bit different compared to PC 256c among a lot of others, with no demo specific limited pal for demo effects coding reasons sometimes such as plane effects.
To be really clear. We never, ever judge design and creative visions or ideas. We only go by pixelart specific basics and techniques. Ugly fonts or text we can't judge but how they are pixelled we do. If you are certain that your app is pure pixel friendly then it must be the way you save or output files or some technicality like that. You can always check your work before submitting using the PJ file checker too. HERE>> Image Specs
Thanks Jalonso for your precious comment.
You said : " When you output files or when pixelling or somewhere in the process you have tiny bits of blurs or paint with opacity or something that messes up the output. "
The problem is that i can see the reason among theses, i use no tool, only direct pixel with basic pixel painting prog such as degas elite for all gfx i submit. Pixel, by pixel even lines are made mouse direct.
Maybe logo / text / titles are not very appreciated.
I'll try another one to test. About the face, i tried to render the source light of fire burning. Tried to keep the 16c use for the title, same colours needed for many effects in the demo. I have to get better for sure.
As mentioned I meant dithering on the flesh mostly and dithering for the PJ gallery is never a reason something is sent back. Its a valid tried and true technique. My bad if I expressed poorly.
Again, the reason for your rejections have been file output and some possible tool usage in spots.
I can't agree about so called "over dithering". If you pixel for retro machines like ST or C64 sometimes it really helps to get a result on real machine (especially with limited gfx modes). Take a look at mine pixels. They eren't rejected and to PJ standards thay look over-dithered. I take dithering as a style or neccesity for retro pixeling. But agree it could look weird/bad on modern platfors, though.
All rejections with your pixels have been for technical reasons only and I'm sure we've let you know about this :/ When you output files or when pixelling or somewhere in the process you have tiny bits of blurs or paint with opacity or something that messes up the output.
On the pure pixelling side you do over dither your work and that's not a point for rejection just bad habit/form. Take the face on this piece. The use of dithering on flesh just makes for a texured and ugly surface, ya noes.