2 ms·
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
by zozbot234 1y ago
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.)
- lukan 1y agoI 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.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- reconnecting 1y agoIt's amazing what people achieved with the resources of the '80s, creating fairly enjoyable visuals using extremely limited technology. 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSjpIyMt0k 2. https://github.com/matrix-toolbox/MARS.COM/blob/main/MARS.ASM https://github.com/matrix-toolbox/MARS.COM/blob/main/MARS.AS...
- lukan 1y agoIt is definitely amazing what they pioneered and achieved with the given limits. But that doesn't mean I would enjoy a pixelated image now more than a high resolution image of the same motive.
- reconnecting 1y agoTaking this parallel further, perhaps oil paintings are not as sharp as digital photos of the same subject.