Jump to content

Talk:Deluxe Paint

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thepreacher (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 27 August 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing: Amiga Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Amiga.
Things you can help WikiProject Amiga with:

Can anyone elaborate on the legal case involving Deluxe Paint? Details such as who the case was against and a more involved description of the decision would be great. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:28, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just did a quick search of the Lexis legal database. There are no published American court cases that reference "Deluxe Paint." This is not the entire universe of cases, however. Many U.S. cases are unpublished. If the case was decided by the trial court, without an appeal, lack of publication would be unsurprising.

I worked at Electronic Arts, including on Deluxe Paint, in 1988. I don't recall any mention of this litigation. My impression of the ethical views of EA's founders is that the lawsuit, if there was a lawsuit, probably involved a much narrower issue. I find it hard (not impossible, but very hard) to believe that EA's founders ever intended to assert copyright over the creations of mass-market customers.CemKaner (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section describing this legal case since as there's no evidence that this ever happened. Five years to find a citation is probably long enough. Thepreacher (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the United States, the analogy drawn that makers of hammers and saws could claim copyright on any buildings built with such tools is faulty, as buildings per se are not copyrightable. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

dpaint

I hope nobody will mind me updating the Deluxe Paint page a bit. I was co-developer of the last few versions; for a bit more on the Deluxe Paint story, some details can be found here: http://home.earthlink.net/~rock_island/files/dpaint.htm

-djh

By all means, the more info the better! I think these articles are especially valuable because the product is no longer available ... looking at the screenshots really brings back memories to me of all the hours I wasted pushing buttons as a kid. Some information on the file-formats would be useful, especially any unique to dpaint.   freshgavin TALK    03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

video game art

Deluxe Paint (Amiga) and Deluxe Animation (PC) were basically were probaby 80% of all game artwork were created in the period from about 1987 to 1993. At least in American and European countries. I know Deluxe Paint was used in nearly all Microprose products from 1987 including Pirates (PC), Red Storm Rising (C64), Gunship (PC) and others. Most Virgin Games including Spirit of Excalibur, M.C. Kids, Global Gladiators, Cool Spot. The first Shiny Entertainment games including Earthworm Jim 1 and 2 and literally hundreds if not thousands of others. Greggman 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour palette in Functionality section

From the section "Functionality":

Unlike other products, for example Adobe Photoshop, DPaint was heavily oriented towards the bitmapped and bitplaned display modes of the Amiga. In other paint applications palette and image data are somewhat divorced. In DPaint they were firmly linked, to the extent that changing the hue of a palette entry automatically changed all pixels of that index in the image.

This is a basic feature of indexed, rather than full RGB, colour palettes, and is in no way specific to DPaint. The Amiga's native chipset only supported indexed colour: up to 32 out of 4096 for OCS/ECS, or up to 256 out of 16777216 for AGA. (Although HAM was a way to emulate full RGB palettes.) The way how all pixels of a specific colour index changed hue when the colour's own hue was changed is a basic feature of the Amiga's chipset and thus could be used (in fact, could hardly be avoided) in all other programs as well. I myself made elaborate graphics demos in AmigaBASIC and C using that feature.

Not even specific to the Amiga platform. For example my first infant experimentation with computer animation came with noodling about in Degas Elite on the Atari ST, and discovering the nuances of its "cycle" brush and pallette function. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I don't think this deserves a mention in the Deluxe Paint article as it has hardly anything to do with Deluxe Paint. JIP | Talk 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could maybe rewrite it to reflect the underlying reasons, then. Fourohfour 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. I can do it when I find enough time. JIP | Talk 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've had almost two years, what happened? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Paint

Does anyone think it would be useful to mention the rivalry with Cloanto's Personal Paint (bundled with the A1200) and comparisons in their approaches. I know I always found Personal Paint easier to work with - but that was just my preference - I always found PP had more features than DP but I might have not been comparing like for like versions. Any comments?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.215.167 (talk • contribs).

Is there any evidence that there was widespread rivalry, or is it just a personal preference you have (in which case it certainly *doesn't* belong)? IIRC Personal Paint came out pretty late in the day, around the time the final version of Deluxe Paint was released, so it sounds dubious to me. Fourohfour 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it was somewhat easier to use myself - and one or the other were bundled with various Commodore Amiga bundles (in the uk at least). Perhaps rivalry was the wrong word - alternatives might be better. Eitherway - I thought it might be useful because I know the animation feature in DP came before PP, but PP had more effects than DP in its earlier versions. I was wondering if this was of interest to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.223.197 (talk • contribs).
Depends if you're comparing like with like. It might be worth mentioning Personal Paint, but unless there are specific things you can say that are backed up with references, I wouldn't add more than that. Fourohfour 15:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blur tool

"DPaint was the first program to have a built-in blur effect, although many have categorized it as a lossy compression technique, rather than a feature." This statement is somewhat confusing, what is it supposed to mean? I assume the blur effect referred to is the smooth brush mode, but I don't see what this has to do with compression. Also "many have categorized it" is a vague statement with no supporting evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.121.63.2 (talk • contribs).

"Many have categorized it" is indeed a vague (non-)attibution, and an example of weasel words. The whole second part of the sentence sounds very dubious to me, and I have removed it. (The first part remains in place, but I have requested a citation/reference). Fourohfour 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd chuck the allusion to MPEG compression vs the IFF delta compression in the same basket, it's a completely different thing along the lines of 'record different pixels only' in GIF animation. As this format was also used on the ST in some apps (e.g. Antic's CyberPaint, optionally using the .DLT extension), wasn't exactly too "out there" of an idea, and neither of them really have anything like the power for any kind of DCT/i-p-b frame based decompression let alone encoding --- which is unsuitable for limited-pallette graphics anyway - I'm not sure why it warrants any kind of MPG mention except to make DP seem better, by association, than it already was. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DPVAboutBoxWithImage.png

Image:DPVAboutBoxWithImage.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DPVBoxArt.png

Image:DPVBoxArt.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DPVScreenFormat.png

Image:DPVScreenFormat.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

final paragraph of Functionality segment

This looks like it was written by someone who really didn't understand much about encyclopaedic writing, and I don't even understand some bits of it. Plus, wasn't the whole IDEA of HAM that it allows 12-bit colour (type) images with the same memory use as 6-bit indexed colour without needing any kind of compression? (And, how else is DP representing the 12-bit image in 6 bits otherwise?) Could someone who better understands the exact subject matter and can more accurately decipher the original writer's intent rejig it to be clearer and more professional looking? 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs a rewrite, basically. And that's not going to happen, but it's not a problem - you just have to wait a few more years. Eventually the people who used Deluxe Paint will forget about it, and it will no longer be notable; at that point the article can be cut down to a couple of sentences (e.g. "Deluxe Paint was a bitmap popular paint package for the Commodore Amiga home computer. It was released in five versions, from 1985 to 1994, by Electronic Arts.") Problem solved! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deluxe_Paint&oldid=234561700"