41–50 of 210 posts
Really interesting. I’m wondering if there’s any LLM or image model on Hugging Face that has been trained specifically on low-res black-and-white images like MacPaint. Has anyone come across something similar or seen a fine-tuned model in this specific retro visual style?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, are you sure that there is not some nostalgia at play here? To me they look horribly pixelated and at least some would improve aesthetically a lot for me with a higher resolution.
Even today these pictures have an almost perfect resolution for showing on a compact e-paper display. The viewing area on the original Mac models was not that much bigger, either. They only look "horribly pixelated" when artificially upscaled for a modern big screen. (A pixel-art specific upscaling filter would mitigate that issue, of course.)
But if you folks enjoy them, go for it. Otherwise taste is subjective I think.
Then we should probably mention http://macpaint.org (From page HTML source) Does anyone even remember why Netscape 4 was bad?
Browsers were changing quickly back then, but if anybody remembers, it became Netscape Communicator and tried to expand to do everything.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator#:~:text=Thi...
Then we should probably mention http://macpaint.org (From page HTML source) Does anyone even remember why Netscape 4 was bad?
NN4 tended to crash more than NN3, it may have been due to the rushed development during the browser wars.
https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/macgrid
Incidentially /r/VintagePixelArt often has discussions about this sort of thing.
Then we should probably mention http://macpaint.org (From page HTML source) Does anyone even remember why Netscape 4 was bad?
I think it was a total rewrite, similar to why Winamp 2 was great, fast, not bloated but Winamp 3 was slow, adding extraneous features nobody wanted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even today these pictures have an almost perfect resolution for showing on a compact e-paper display. The viewing area on the original Mac models was not that much bigger, either. They only look "horribly pixelated" when artificially upscaled for a modern big screen. (A pixel-art specific upscaling filter would mitigate that issue, of course.)
I was viewing them via a small mobile screen, not high DPI, not fullscreen. And to me, they simply don't look good the way they are. But if you folks enjoy them, go for it. Otherwise taste is subjective I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even today these pictures have an almost perfect resolution for showing on a compact e-paper display. The viewing area on the original Mac models was not that much bigger, either. They only look "horribly pixelated" when artificially upscaled for a modern big screen. (A pixel-art specific upscaling filter would mitigate that issue, of course.)
I was viewing them via a small mobile screen, not high DPI, not fullscreen. And to me, they simply don't look good the way they are. But if you folks enjoy them, go for it. Otherwise taste is subjective I think.
Another example from the early '90s is MARS.COM (1) by Tim Clarke (1993). Just 6 kilobytes and 30+ fps on a 12MHZ 286 (2).
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSjpIyMt0k
2. https://github.com/matrix-toolbox/MARS.COM/blob/main/MARS.AS...
There's a term I read about a long time ago, I think it was "aesthetic completeness" or something like that. It was used in the context of video games whose art direction was fully realized in the game, i.e. increases in graphics hardware or capabilities wouldn't add anything to the game in an artistic sense. The original Homeworld games were held up as examples. Anyway, this reminded me of that. Making these picture…
Was this the artist’s vision, or were they simply making the best of the tools they had?