Well... I can't, Ironman and Mermaid returns so many results on the network If anyone is in touch with Vanja Utne...

I like the font on this one. Simple but with character.

PNG reported. Palette is 32 colors.
[ed.CONS: JPG removed, PNG and information added.]

Just dropping by to say I enjoy reading this discussion about output, I am an uneducated spectator regarding ZX and it helps me to understand the whole thing. I also found out that your aguments could help me appreciate/understand how to render exotic screenmodes on amiga. Thanks for making this public.

Irwin> completely agree with you. Multicolor Image can not be paired with a classic picture, if only in the emulator. Like everyone that wrote to me converting, so I now find that other critics do.

Thats why i wrote:
- "this looks MORE like this:"
- not EXACTLY
Do you realy think there is on real ZX gigacreen pictures look like static *.png file?

> Real Speccy has different flickering (with interlace technology) which has nothing to do with an emulator.

i agree - but its flicker anyway. So? static png looks like this flickering?

> In zx-emulators and on PC you can't see proper version of flickering (bad vertical synchro) that's why WE USE PNG-shots.

and this is a "cheating" - like i said in first post - because on real ZX this pictures don't look static.

Find other way to show on web page - maybe like on c64pixels.com because now, like i said (and no one answer) there is possible to create x-lace pictures and mix in to one static png.

Irwin, and please, don't say something if you have never seen a real zx spectrum. It rather different machine than even the best emulator.

Real Speccy has different flickering (with interlace technology) which has nothing to do with an emulator.

Irwin, Cons, nop, on real speccy pictures look different. Links at zx.maros.ee show just two screens flickers one after another without interlace technology (decrease flickering).

In zx-emulators and on PC you can't see proper version of flickering (bad vertical synchro) that's why we use PNG-shots.

For example my picture here with interlace technology:
http://simbols.untergrund.net/riskej/graphics/2010/graymalex1.rar

Omg, is that what the pictures really look like?

DiHalt - Diver4d, imagine this:

Authors always don't know about partyplace screening quality.
On parties always be and will be plenty drunk peoples

But we have rules. I understand drunk and bored sceners and their votes. But don't understand organizers who don't respect their own DiHalt rules:

"- All graphics works should have a minimum 3 intermediate phases in the archive.
- Scanned pictures and others copies are not accepted.
- Party version shouldn't show the signature of the author/group."

Look then on Bfox picture:
01 Sign is visible (right bottom) - rule is violated.
02 Picture is a copy from photo (maybe manually in benediction precision pixeled (personally i doubt) but it does't matter - it's a copy - next rule is violated.
03 No intermediate phases - again 3rd time rule is violated.

http://i32.tinypic.com/23s94lu.jpg

Some authors respect organizers, respect rules and in effect take 8th place.
Others authors have organizers, sceners and rules in ... (censored word) ... and win!

Imagine now, for example what Piesiu feel. Or not imagine, just read (via google translate)this:
http://atarionline.pl/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=856&Focus=12934#Comment_12934

---
Gigascreen:
If in rules will be separate two gfx compos then i think will be more gigascreen pictures.
Like in ArtField. Like i separate music compos. Some authors will start in two categories, some other when see there is a equal rules - limits to everyone, start in this compo (like me . Now when one make picture in 15 colors and 8x8 blocks and other in 102 colors and 8x1 there is a huge difference.
Something like ZX Spectrum and Amiga.
Of course gigascreen have cons too - flickering
BUT ON WEB PAGE FLICKERING IS NO VISIBLE!

So maybe we should create new mode supergigascreen - 4 picture lace.
Now we have thousands colors and instead this:
http://i29.tinypic.com/35b9sv4.png
we show this
http://i26.tinypic.com/25iutg3.jpg

or
http://i43.tinypic.com/j7qcsl.png
we show this
http://i30.tinypic.com/begi0i.jpg

On web page when mix all 4 images together (like interlace now) you see very colorfull picture. For sure planty peoples vote on this and think about others pictures - 15 colors 8x8 pictures - "autor this 15 color is a moron, probably blind , he use bad woodstock naroctics colors, and this visible blocks..."

Now when you enter here:
http://artcity.bitfellas.org/index.php?a=show&id=17251
you read "I can't see any blocks"
or here
http://artcity.bitfellas.org/index.php?a=show&id=17250
"Nice shade of colours"

But all this things cost: flicker - but on web page - we have nice static pictures.

So we mix 4pictures and we have even more colors - but maybe someone say: this is on ZX not watchable - who cares!
I care.

If this pictures will proper sign like "Achtung, Wnimanje - this is braindamage interlace, this looks more like this:
http://zx.maros.pri.ee/zxscreen/border/0/palette/pulsar/mode/flicker/type/multiartist/id/3749/filename/IMAGE.mg4
http://zx.maros.pri.ee/zxscreen/border/0/palette/pulsar/mode/flicker/type/gigascreen/id/3748/filename/graymale.img

Then i think many online voters vote different. Now many don't know about gigascreen. Here is 2 weeks ago thread on atarionline:
http://atarionline.pl/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=754&Focus=12784#Comment_12784

So this is totally different then your example b&w because, b&w like 15 color don't flicker.
Equal chances to all. This is a reason to split compo by not mode - by interlace.

irwin, i'm agreed, that Piesiu did VERY great work with that picture. And the picture is really impressive - a lot of details, interesting story, very beautiful countours and dithering.

BUT, just imagine the open-air party place at the lakeshore, at night, drunk and bored sceners trying to see anything on the screen and what did they see? Some light green-cyan-magenta areas. Is it a really good choice for party pic? Definitely no, so you can se only BIGFACEPICS at the top of the party results.

And compare partyresults with online voting. Two detailed pictures at 1st and 2nd places. These results looks more adequate.

About mixing gfxomodes at compo:
1) there is not so much gigascreen graphics at every party to separate it.
2) gigascreen mode is just developing last years and it needs more support, so it mixed with standard mode at most parties
3) as you can see gigascreen not always wins - just check DiHalt 2010 party results (gigascreen pictures is #4 and #5)
4) you said that gigascreen can be separated because it has more tricks to hide blocks + much more other possibilites. But look at B/W graphics - it is much more easy to draw in any editor, and it has no blocks at all! So, B/W graphics must be separated from colour graphics? Ofcourse no. Every graphician chooses himself, which mode to choose, how hard will be drawing process and which graphics possibilities he need. And it is not a reason to split the compo by mode.

something wrong with face and apple forms

I second this. I'll try to locate a reliable source.

13 colors, with 6 shades of clear blue, res 320*256. looks like amiga ecs pal to me.

Graffiti \o/

Actually i am not sure if that is real C64.

i check again the slideshow on WinUAE and it definitively have a purple light and purple reflection on the logo

It is here I do not mind a collision, I wanted a simple picture. Greets all zx maniac.

Multicolor real-ZX on a picture for me unusable. Man is invisible on the PC. On the PC it looks really nice, but it is not ZX. And when the vote in one category, it should do as the pictures flashed on a real ZX. Whether there is a difference.

C64?!
What is video mode on c64?