Don't come into some guys thread where he busted his ass off and just tell him someone did this in HD and did it better... maybe we don't want HD? Maybe we want 32 pixel remake of the originals.. Jesus you people are rude as hell..
I for one applaud your effort and hope you continue tweaking it to get it as good looking as possible. It is a tiny bit blurry but not too bad.
New? You say you added just some noise to get rid of the blur?
Dude, and all other dudes with criticism of my attempts to recreate the default textures at 32 pixels while maintaining the appearance of the original textures, here's an idea for you.
Do it.
I shouldn't post after a long day and then a long night at the bar.
I'm aware of the Faithful pack. It's interpretation of the original textures is good, but interpretive. That is a fine idea for a pack.
I'm going to continue updating this pack as I improve the fidelity and quality. Please feel free to comment in whatever way you feel like about it.
The song offer stands. Judgments will be made both objectively using photoshop, the original textures Nearest Neighbored to 32, difference layering and the histogram and those that are objectively similar to the originals I'll put up for a subjective vote.
Sorry, but that looks pretty bad :/
It looks like all you did is resize it and add some noise and blurring.
Adding noise/ blur to an image =/= making it HD. Just because there are more pixels doesn't mean it's HD.
I'm not even sure why you'd resize each block individualy, when you could resize the entire pack. If you really wanted to create a so called HD version of the original, without changing the textures in any way (which itself is really lazy and requires no effort) you could have resized the original to 200% using Nearest Neighbor and then played around with some filters (probably the plastic knife filter), which again, would show no effort.
Here's 2 edits I made by using 1 filter for each. Took less than 30seconds to make with no effort on my behalf.
You get the idea. I could spend like an hour on it patching it up and making them pretty, but my point still stands.
Sorry, but it doesn't look like you put much effort into it. I would have expected a bit more from someone who made an entire thread about how to make texture packs. I'd also like to ask you to try to accept criticism and not flip out like you did before.
Don't come into some guys thread where he busted his ass off and just tell him someone did this in HD and did it better... maybe we don't want HD? Maybe we want 32 pixel remake of the originals.. Jesus you people are rude as hell..
it is 32 px remake
anyway just thought he would like to know. know he knows and hes gonna make it anyway so you can have two to choose from. then maybe you knickers wont be so knotted.
...
Here's 2 edits I made by using 1 filter for each. Took less than 30seconds to make with no effort on my behalf.
I'm assuming that posting something that you acknowledge you put no effort into is, by way of comparison with Authentic, should be taken to suggest the amount of effort you think I've put into Authentic.
Quote from Lilyo »
...Sorry, but it doesn't look like you put much effort into it. I would have expected a bit more from someone who made an entire thread about how to make texture packs.
It doesn't look like I put much effort into it? hmmmm.... Perhaps. I mean that is your judgement of it. Your opinion. But I have put effort into it. Right? Just not enough in your estimation. So let's compare notes...
FRIDAY...FRIDAY...FRIDAY...
It's... COBBLEOFF!
In the LEFT corner... Lilyo! In the RIGHT corner... AUTHENTIC!
I think it looks nice in my opinion. Doing this stuff isn't easy at all. Seeing people complain, however, is amusing because they think they're experts.
Anyway, I like it. The slight blur works well actually with jumping from 16x to 32x.
If you create one from scratch and people complain, then they're just jackasses lol.
!!
Plus I don't see in the title of this thread "HD" so where's everyone getting this from ? WTF is wrong with people. Just because it's 'bigger than 16x' doesn't automatically mean a person did a HD.
To be honest, 128x and 256x ISN'T HD EITHER! lol
THIS IS ALL "SD" (Standard Definition)
Now when MC can do 1000x1000 then we'll talk and lean more towards HD
In the LEFT corner... Lilyo! In the RIGHT corner... AUTHENTIC!
DING!
Hmm, the one on the right does seem more realistic, however it is very blurry to my eye and doesn't exactly seem as "Pleasant" as the one on the left. Still, its a step up, however, one point goes to the one on the left for being....
1. Pleasant to the eye, this is a BIG factor.
2. It's smoother and plain sticks more to the original, albeit it could be a little bit more different.
Nice job, but the one on the right corner needs to be smoother.
The one on the left took 30 seconds to make with one layer of filter. The one on the right was one of 800 layers and what I can guess as many, many filters.
I agree now, seeing it actually tile, that it does look a bit better than in the terrain, but my point still stands. All you did is mess around with some filters.
It looks like all you did is resize it and add some noise and blurring.
Conjecture. You're making a suposition about how I did something. not only does this bother me because you're guess is wrong, but because it isn't even important if it's correct or not. Casting aspersions on something for how it was created isn't wrong or bad, I'm not saying that, it's just bigoted.
Why would you care how something is done? You wouldn't unless you are biased against the method. The end result is what you DO know something about. How does it fulfill it's purpose?
Quote from Lilyo »
Here's 2 edits I made by using 1 filter for each. Took less than 30seconds to make with no effort on my behalf.
What does this demonstrate? That you can apply a filter to the terrain file and call that a texture pack? I felt you were suggesting that this is as good as what I made, so I made <COBBLEOFF> as a way of just seeing if you were right.
Quote from Lilyo »
The one on the left took 30 seconds to make with one layer of filter. The one on the right was one of 800 layers and what I can guess as many, many filters.
You are actually going to suggest that this is a ridiculous comparison because I put a lot more work and time into Authentic and you just resized and applied a filter to yours?
Quote from Lilyo »
I agree now, seeing it actually tile, that it does look a bit better than in the terrain, but my point still stands. All you did is mess around with some filters.
People would probably be more inclined to use it if you didn't make a point of it being AUTHENTIC
I am not being paid a commission. It isn't my goal to get a lot of people to play my packs. Every thing I do here is because I wanted to do that thing. Nothing more.
I suppose if I wanted to I could ask what everyone thought I should call it. But I didn't want to. I named it Authentic because it is an attempt to be as accurate to the original as possible.
Also it let me justify using a stencil font. I like stencil fonts.
If you do it properly it should look like this: Especially look at the grass, the cake and the mushroom outline to see what i mean. You will never achieve a look like this with 200% upscaling.
...
(I have my technique applied to the image as a whole for this demonstration. If done properly it must be applied to each tile individually.)
would you be willing to share your technique? I generally like the effect, but it does have a peculiar artifact it leaves behind. At least, as you point out, when it's applied to the entire file rather than one tile at a time. I'm thinking it's based on shifting a simi-transparent copy layer up and left a pixel. Maybe more than one layer with different layering compositions?
What the hell are you talking about Dilla? They're basically the same thing, only yours is a bit more blurred. I could have spent 30 more seconds adding another filter for blurs in a few spots, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, it being that taking a texture pack, resizing it, and adding some filters =/= making a good texture pack.
As I read the comments I feel that a lot of people have missed the point entirely of the art of minecraft. Not everyone likes pixel art. Notch does, and so that is the style he has used in his game while allowing others to make replacements that suit their own tastes. Why are you all telling copperdomebodha that his work is bad simply because you don't like the result? Who are you to say what is acceptable or pleasing to another person?
I think the idea is great and I support the work and effort; though I probably will not use this texture pack because, as the rest of you, it doesn't fit my personal taste.
A better perspective than saying 'blah this is bad, you are lazy' is maybe to ask, are you working harder or smarter? Dilla has offered the most (only?) useful suggestion in the form of a different method to resize the original textures that gives a cleaner result in my opinion. I can't offer any advice other than perhaps you need to step back from your work and look at it with new eyes. I wish you success with your project.
For what this texture pack is supposed to be, its great. I don't see the purpose of people trolling. If you dont have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
It's a fair assessment. Only the first two half-rows have been manually reworked so far and I don't think I have even uploaded those changes yet.
Yes, it is blurry. Yes it could be improved a lot to take advantage of the doubled resolution. That's the plan. But first, I have to establish a good base representation of what the original textures look like when up-rezzed to 32. That's what you see here. My best effort at the up-rezzing of the original textures. this alone WAS a great deal of work. But that doesn't really matter. It is what it is.
Photoshop can't make up data that's not there. I use it to suggest the final shape of the textures, but they have to be manually created to not look like a blurry mess. As you've noted here. So what about it? It's clearly marked "early beta" and I explained exactly what it is and why I made it.
So, to summarize this whole thread. Here's a thing I made. It's in progress. It's intended to be a perfect upscaled match ( an impossible task, but bear with me ) to the original textures. The whole process will be recorded in the thread. Perhaps it will even be helpful to someone who is creating a texture pack of their own. At the very least, it will be a lesson for anyone that reads it of the vitriolic responses you can get on the MCFs.
Thanks for taking the time to test it and also give me feedback on it. I know already what needs to be done. I just need the time to do it. I have a few pots in the fire already that need tending, so this will slowly wind it's way through as I need a break from the other MC projects I have going on.
RE complainers, if you think its bad/took no effort, if you dont like it, if you'ld rather use something else then use something else. Its funny how the internet seems to drain common sense away from many of its users
EDIT: if you do get it not as blurry and all fine tuned, it could prove to be a great resource for people that want a better reference point for making their own 32 pixel pack
RE complainers, if you think its bad/took no effort, if you dont like it, if you'ld rather use something else then use something else. Its funny how the internet seems to drain common sense away from many of its users
There are complainers who just complain, and those who tell the person how to improve it. The man who just "reviewed" this "early beta" is the latter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=77442
Don't come into some guys thread where he busted his ass off and just tell him someone did this in HD and did it better... maybe we don't want HD? Maybe we want 32 pixel remake of the originals.. Jesus you people are rude as hell..
I for one applaud your effort and hope you continue tweaking it to get it as good looking as possible. It is a tiny bit blurry but not too bad.
I shouldn't post after a long day and then a long night at the bar.
I'm aware of the Faithful pack. It's interpretation of the original textures is good, but interpretive. That is a fine idea for a pack.
I'm going to continue updating this pack as I improve the fidelity and quality. Please feel free to comment in whatever way you feel like about it.
The song offer stands. Judgments will be made both objectively using photoshop, the original textures Nearest Neighbored to 32, difference layering and the histogram and those that are objectively similar to the originals I'll put up for a subjective vote.
It looks like all you did is resize it and add some noise and blurring.
Adding noise/ blur to an image =/= making it HD. Just because there are more pixels doesn't mean it's HD.
I'm not even sure why you'd resize each block individualy, when you could resize the entire pack. If you really wanted to create a so called HD version of the original, without changing the textures in any way (which itself is really lazy and requires no effort) you could have resized the original to 200% using Nearest Neighbor and then played around with some filters (probably the plastic knife filter), which again, would show no effort.
Here's 2 edits I made by using 1 filter for each. Took less than 30seconds to make with no effort on my behalf.
You get the idea. I could spend like an hour on it patching it up and making them pretty, but my point still stands.
Sorry, but it doesn't look like you put much effort into it. I would have expected a bit more from someone who made an entire thread about how to make texture packs. I'd also like to ask you to try to accept criticism and not flip out like you did before.
it is 32 px remake
anyway just thought he would like to know. know he knows and hes gonna make it anyway so you can have two to choose from. then maybe you knickers wont be so knotted.
I'm assuming that posting something that you acknowledge you put no effort into is, by way of comparison with Authentic, should be taken to suggest the amount of effort you think I've put into Authentic.
It doesn't look like I put much effort into it? hmmmm.... Perhaps. I mean that is your judgement of it. Your opinion. But I have put effort into it. Right? Just not enough in your estimation. So let's compare notes...
It's...
COBBLEOFF!
In the LEFT corner... Lilyo! In the RIGHT corner... AUTHENTIC!
Anyway, I like it. The slight blur works well actually with jumping from 16x to 32x.
If you create one from scratch and people complain, then they're just jackasses lol.
Plus I don't see in the title of this thread "HD" so where's everyone getting this from ? WTF is wrong with people. Just because it's 'bigger than 16x' doesn't automatically mean a person did a HD.
To be honest, 128x and 256x ISN'T HD EITHER! lol
THIS IS ALL "SD" (Standard Definition)
Now when MC can do 1000x1000 then we'll talk and lean more towards HD
Hmm, the one on the right does seem more realistic, however it is very blurry to my eye and doesn't exactly seem as "Pleasant" as the one on the left. Still, its a step up, however, one point goes to the one on the left for being....
1. Pleasant to the eye, this is a BIG factor.
2. It's smoother and plain sticks more to the original, albeit it could be a little bit more different.
Nice job, but the one on the right corner needs to be smoother.
I agree now, seeing it actually tile, that it does look a bit better than in the terrain, but my point still stands. All you did is mess around with some filters.
We're comparing pixels...it's really come down to this now.
Good solid opinion.
Conjecture. You're making a suposition about how I did something. not only does this bother me because you're guess is wrong, but because it isn't even important if it's correct or not. Casting aspersions on something for how it was created isn't wrong or bad, I'm not saying that, it's just bigoted.
Why would you care how something is done? You wouldn't unless you are biased against the method. The end result is what you DO know something about. How does it fulfill it's purpose?
What does this demonstrate? That you can apply a filter to the terrain file and call that a texture pack? I felt you were suggesting that this is as good as what I made, so I made <COBBLEOFF> as a way of just seeing if you were right.
You are actually going to suggest that this is a ridiculous comparison because I put a lot more work and time into Authentic and you just resized and applied a filter to yours?
/palmface
I am not being paid a commission. It isn't my goal to get a lot of people to play my packs. Every thing I do here is because I wanted to do that thing. Nothing more.
I suppose if I wanted to I could ask what everyone thought I should call it. But I didn't want to. I named it Authentic because it is an attempt to be as accurate to the original as possible.
Also it let me justify using a stencil font. I like stencil fonts.
would you be willing to share your technique? I generally like the effect, but it does have a peculiar artifact it leaves behind. At least, as you point out, when it's applied to the entire file rather than one tile at a time. I'm thinking it's based on shifting a simi-transparent copy layer up and left a pixel. Maybe more than one layer with different layering compositions?
Compare them side by side
http://yourimg.in/j/c718ie.png
http://i.imgur.com/iGm9D.png
I think the idea is great and I support the work and effort; though I probably will not use this texture pack because, as the rest of you, it doesn't fit my personal taste.
A better perspective than saying 'blah this is bad, you are lazy' is maybe to ask, are you working harder or smarter? Dilla has offered the most (only?) useful suggestion in the form of a different method to resize the original textures that gives a cleaner result in my opinion. I can't offer any advice other than perhaps you need to step back from your work and look at it with new eyes. I wish you success with your project.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumFor what this texture pack is supposed to be, its great. I don't see the purpose of people trolling. If you dont have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Thus Cube spoke, let it be done.
Copperdomebodha wins
Yes, it is blurry. Yes it could be improved a lot to take advantage of the doubled resolution. That's the plan. But first, I have to establish a good base representation of what the original textures look like when up-rezzed to 32. That's what you see here. My best effort at the up-rezzing of the original textures. this alone WAS a great deal of work. But that doesn't really matter. It is what it is.
Photoshop can't make up data that's not there. I use it to suggest the final shape of the textures, but they have to be manually created to not look like a blurry mess. As you've noted here. So what about it? It's clearly marked "early beta" and I explained exactly what it is and why I made it.
So, to summarize this whole thread. Here's a thing I made. It's in progress. It's intended to be a perfect upscaled match ( an impossible task, but bear with me ) to the original textures. The whole process will be recorded in the thread. Perhaps it will even be helpful to someone who is creating a texture pack of their own. At the very least, it will be a lesson for anyone that reads it of the vitriolic responses you can get on the MCFs.
Thanks for taking the time to test it and also give me feedback on it. I know already what needs to be done. I just need the time to do it. I have a few pots in the fire already that need tending, so this will slowly wind it's way through as I need a break from the other MC projects I have going on.
RE complainers, if you think its bad/took no effort, if you dont like it, if you'ld rather use something else then use something else. Its funny how the internet seems to drain common sense away from many of its users
EDIT: if you do get it not as blurry and all fine tuned, it could prove to be a great resource for people that want a better reference point for making their own 32 pixel pack
There are complainers who just complain, and those who tell the person how to improve it. The man who just "reviewed" this "early beta" is the latter.