 | | Wow! This guy is good! —James Brown
|
| | | I got pointed at this site by an eBay auction, and was floored by this guy's skill! (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (24 years ago, 6-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) sort of person or other object for scale, they could just be filtered pictures. If they are real, though.... wow. I mean, if they're so well done I think they must be fake, they gotta be pretty good. :D eric (24 years ago, 6-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Chris Maddison
|
| | | | | | | (...) any (...) pictures. (...) they (...) Aye, I agree. I am skeptical, but if they're the real McCoy, then that guy has MAJOR talent. I'd like to find out more about these portraits. -Chris (24 years ago, 6-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, I suppose they could be faked, but then, he's going to run into a rough spot if someone wins the Einstein portrait he's got up on eBay... And as to the 'must be fake'... Legoland has portraits of similar (or greater) size and complexity, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) For the record, I don't doubt that someone could actually do the portraits. I certainly have seen things people have done that I think are even *more* impressive.... I find 3-D modelling and especially intricate clever uses of small pieces to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | | | | | As a point of information, I'm quite certain that the images are not from PixelLEGO or other such program. If you examine a PixelLEGO image at high magnification you'll see that each color is homogeneous. If you examine the images in question at (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Alan Gerber
|
| | | | | | | (...) any (...) pictures. (...) they (...) The PixelEGO program's pictures are only viewable by a Java Applet, not in just a plain image files, so I don't doubt them. Alan (24 years ago, 6-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Gene C. Weissinger
|
| | | | | | | | | I think this person actually did these portraits... I don't think he would have the gall to auction them if not... How naive I am... Also - isn't there a way to 'capture' a java applet picture into a jpeg file? EC (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Adrian Drake
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, you could do a printscreen of the results of the Java applet, open that up in your favorite graphics program, and snip away all the stuff that you don't want, and presto, you have an image. It's not that hard to do, and I've used that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Eric Harshbarger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This is not so. My Pixelego Application (the latest version taht was released about a month ago) can save a filtered image as a standard GIF file. (URL) ---...--- Eric Harshbarger / eric@ericharshbarger.org / www.ericharshbarger.org "Oh (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Different dithering techniques, I think. Eric H.'s "Pixelego" program applies error-diffusion dithering to the image. These ones appear to be hand-dithered (notice the stylistic lines in the foreheads and hair). (...) Even if they aren't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Kinda reminds me of drawing in EGA on 320 x 200 screens. Somehow it seems more acceptable here, but boy, those 16 non-definable colors drove me nuts (let's not mention the Apple ][ and the horrors it imposed). Anyway, I'd agree that it looks (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ohh, lets. No drawing one-pixel wide white lines -- one lone pixel is either blue or yellow, depending if it's in an even or odd column. (This is due to the techniques Microsoft invented 20 years later for their ClearType technology...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Graphics Programming on the Apple II (was: Wow! This guy is good!) —John J. Ladasky, Jr.
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Mein Gott! Someone who actually remembers graphics programming on the Apple II! But I remember things a little differently. A pixel was defined in a rather slippery fashion in Apple II "high-resolution" graphics. A pixel was either one bit or (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Graphics Programming on the Apple II (was: Wow! This guy is good!) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Check this out: (URL). The "pixels" as you describe above aren't really whole pixels at all; rather they are subpixels, much like the red, green, and blue subpixels on a LCD display. This is exactly the concept Microsoft's Cleartype takes (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Graphics Programming on the Apple II (was: Wow! This guy is good!) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) MS's Cleartype and the way Woz did Apple ]['s hires graphics mode are a world apart, actually. And the Apple ]['s 1/2-pixel horizontal shifting was the same on color monitors as green/black monitors -- that is, from the same video signal if (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Graphics Programming on the Apple II (was: Wow! This guy is good!) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I agree that the underlying hardware is completely different, but the net result of having subpixels is similar, and leads to remarkably similar software solutions. (So much so that I hope it counts as prior art, 'cause it is an interesting (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Graphics Programming on the Apple II (was: Wow! This guy is good!) —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | | | | I'm not a TV engineer, but I recall the Apple ][ color distribution was made possible by a trick that used the luminance signal to gate an oscillating chroma signal. The transition from 1 to 0 (or from 0 to 1) was the key that produced a color (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) (Looking at long string of discussion) I'm sorry I mentioned it. That should have been "Let's not *discuss* the Apple ][..." The horror...the horror...(where was Martin Sheen when I needed him)... Bruce (should I mention the horrors of drawing (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Lawrence Wilkes
|
| | | | | | (...) any (...) pictures. I dont think these portraits are has hard to do as people seem to be thinking. Certainly it takes some patients (and bricks) to build the picture, but the pattern to follow is easily achieved by using a good paint program (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | I think somebody actually owns the copyright for Einstein's "image". If so, I'd expect selling these for profit to be breach of copyright? Scott A (URL) Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote in message news:FvqtoB.33I@lugnet.com... (...) guy's (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | Nope, doesn't work that way, or any photographer/artist could be out of business. This IS a work of art, even if it is "only" made out of Lego. That gives the creator a lot more latitude. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | Sounds sensible to me. SO could he do one of Mickey mouse, or, say, the Coca Cola Logo? Scott A "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> wrote in message news:393E6522.EADA87...ape.com... (...) the (...) so, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) That'd be a trademark issue -- different from copyright. (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | (...) Ahh but what about Andy Worhol -sp? Did he get in trouble for say his Coke painting or his Campbells soup painting? Eric Kingsley The New England LEGO Users Group (URL) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) There is a "fair use" concept which applies to all forms of intellectual property. Use in art is one of the well-established fair use areas. However, with the way trademark laws work, you'd better be prepared to defend yourself against armies (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | Around 5 years ago there was an artist in NY painting blow-ups of Bank of England notes. The BoE tried to close him down, but as the images were not copyrighted - it cound not be done. All new notes are now copyrighted. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not sure this makes sense -- copyright isn't something that has to be done; it's something you automatically have over any of your creative works. You can register your copyrighted materials, which gives it more force, but I don't think (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Will Middelaer
|
| | | | | | | (...) I do not know about England, but in the United States there is no copyright on anything produced by the U.S. Government. The idea is that works created with public money belongs to the public. Of course there are laws other than copyright that (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Interesting -- I wasn't aware of that. (...) Right, that seems fair. (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Will Middelaer
|
| | | | | | (...) I do not know about England, but in the United States there is no copyright on anything produced by the U.S. Government. The idea is that works created with public money belongs to the public. Of course there are laws other than copyright that (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Alan Gerber
|
| | | | (...) Warhol (...) taking out Maesrk from it when Maesrk told him to. Alan (24 years ago, 8-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) Yes, he did. If I understand it correctly, he wouldn't have _had_ to alter the web page, though. The threat to sue him was just an empty threat. However, to avoid any hassle, he simply altered the web page. This was simpler than hiring a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Wow! This guy is good! —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | Fredrik Glöckner skrev i meddelandet ... (...) Yes, that's about it. I just removed the name M...k from the text, but it's still there on the ship in the picture :-) I can understand their concern in this case, the current Regina M...k is the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
