I am not saying everybody should do this for every piece of pixel art they produce. I am saying it's a worthwhile excercise
1. yes, I am saying to avoid any dithering that creates single pixels. If one has a reason they absolutely need a dither pattern, they should explain what it is
3. I do not believe banding can be used to one's advantage. Blurring will necessarily create *some* banding, but it should be minimized. I think it's completely within the scope of the excercise to do a blurred background like in your (awesome) image and have no banding or single pixels. It's just hard.
5. I take your clarification in stride, even if we can't loudly proclaim that this excercise works for every style, it's still a valuable one to do, I think.
As to your image, I wish I didn't have a dayjob, I'd sit and solve most of it and then we could discuss what is gained/lost by reshuffling the clusters. Select at least part of the image and try it, if you get the time. Don't just tell me why it can't be done, try to do it.
6. I think it's one thing to do that, and another to spend some time solving the 'puzzle', as Vagrant put it above. It gets you to a different mindset.Knowing how to use clusters is a basic technique for pixel art, if not the most important technique and everyone who does pixel art should think about it during his creation process.
Helm,QuoteI am not saying everybody should do this for every piece of pixel art they produce. I am saying it's a worthwhile excercise
I agree with that. The ultimative question is however what we gain from using it, where it's more powerful and where it just sucks in terms of efficiency. I am interested in finding that out.
(http://www.locustleaves.com/13434b.gif)
And here it is without any single pixel at all (so not even a single 45 degree connection). Perhaps even stronger, IMO. Bolder, smarter solutions with less pixel detail, more readable.
As to what is gained from applying this technique: yes, the image will have harsher shifts, and will appear more blocky. Compromises will be made. But I think what is gained is a stronger gestalt, where the form and the content of the image are better aligned. A piece of craftsmanship that is declaring what it is, not playfully hiding what is is by showing it can emulate what it isn't too. To take a picture that has unpleasant blockiness but a promise of gestalt into a picture that retains the gestalt but has a pleasant blockiness is a matter of experience within that mindset. I am too, working on this.
Honestly, I think this is up to skill in execution. I could have edited the mouth and nose of your character without having changed the style and still have no single pixels. The reason I did (change the style) is because I wanted to maximize what I could do with that particular palette to convey something realistic, as I found it more challenging.
The pixel work I plan to do in this mode of no single pixels will not be cartoony, and it will be heavily planar, because that's jsut how I want my art to look. It's up to other people to try to prove me right, not wrong, by trying to do their own particular styles within this limitation. That's the only way to know for sure if what I suggest is style-independent.
"The ultimative question is however what we gain from using it, where it's more powerful and where it just sucks in terms of efficiency"
As to what is gained from applying this technique: yes, the image will have harsher shifts, and will appear more blocky. Compromises will be made. But I think what is gained is a stronger gestalt, where the form and the content of the image are better aligned. A piece of craftsmanship that is declaring what it is, not playfully hiding what is is by showing it can emulate what it isn't too. To take a picture that has unpleasant blockiness but a promise of gestalt into a picture that retains the gestalt but has a pleasant blockiness is a matter of experience within that mindset. I am too, working on this.
I tried to create sort of a realistic impression with a low-res canvas and fat and chunky pixels and as well as really low amount of colors - palette consists out of sweet 16.
Furthermore I tried within those harsh restrictions to capture a golden hour impression with a focus on chiaroscuro for an exterior scenery.
I used checkerboard dither for the illustration of soft lighting on nature which contrasts harshly with the clear cut light on the gothic architectural forms.
Single isolated pixels were mainly used for emphasizing some highlights and adding a tad more detail to the procession of knights.
I also played a lot with size relationships of single elements to increase the impression of the greatness.
However I am finally really questioning myself now what's good "pixel art" and what's good "art made with pixels". I am having a lot more questions now, than before.
I mean this simple rules lead to quite a big difference in the whole thinking process and this rules don't leave you another choice than ending up with really clean pixel art.
Antialiasis shouldn't be explained as making an outline smoother, but as a way to better portray a shape/cluster.
That's all I'm interested in, as a method of learning, for people to consider the pros and cons before they start, even if they deviate after they start.
My answer is: ....I do not know, yet. I agree that AA has changed as a necessary and valuable part of pixel technique as screens have gotten sharper. I've seen a lot of people go for no-AA works that I have found very aesthetically pleasing. And it can be said that a tour de force of super-AA smooth pixel art seems to devolve: it looks like vector art and one has to wonder why it isn't vector art, then.
However in my own work I used to have great trouble letting go of AA, as a lot of skill I've gotten in this art style was related to that. And there is certainly smart AA. And much of a good, mixed color palette is about reusing a main shade as a buffer shade somewhere else.
So through this new idea about minimizing stranded pixels, I finally have a systematic way of figuring out how much AA I really need, if any. I do not have any solid answers to your query, Cyangmou. Perhaps 2point AA (like a small flat cluster) will look to me as gimmicky in a few years as single pixel AA does now. Perhaps 2point will survive because it looks harmonious when it's not aligned with other edges of two-pixel clusters (when it's not banding, so to speak).
And another startling thing about this whole deal: even banding looks less bad when there's no single pixels around, for some reason. Somehow the tetris jumble allows for it more, not sure why.
I completely understand the idea and concept behind doing an exercise like this (I actually went over my avatar and did a version that was void of single pixels, but alas my computer shut down and I hadn't saved it...) but to inherently change the way you pixel just to eliminate an abundance of single pixels? That's an entirely silly and futile idea in my opinion. Who are we to say what we should or should not do with pixel art? If someone wants to create pixel art that is smooth enough to be a vector image, why shouldn't they? Pixel art is a means to an end, just like any other artistic medium. You can create whatever you like with the medium, and saying "well, they simply could have just done a vector image instead" does not hold any water in my book. Sure, they could have, but in the end it is entirely up to them. It's not a waste of time or a worthless exercise just because what they made could have been made with another medium. People create oil paintings that look like photos-- should we tell them to stop painting or change their style? Of course not.Relax, this is not a thread about any kind of prescriptivism.
Over time my pixeling style has worked to attempt to eliminate banding in any shape or form, and I attribute that to the studies done both here on Pixelation and how I've learned and grown over time as well. I know that the idea proposed here isn't to truly eliminate working with single pixels, but some of the talk that has arisen about AA not being a worthwhile exercise and stating that pixel art that is smooth enough to be vector art shouldn't have been pixeled at all just did not sit quite well with me. :-[Perhaps that's because it didn't actually occur?
it can be said that a tour de force of super-AA smooth pixel art seems to devolve: it looks like vector art and one has to wonder why it isn't vector art, then.
It's kind of like dithering is a type anti-alias arranged in a tight repeating pattern, if that makes sense.
QuoteOver time my pixeling style has worked to attempt to eliminate banding in any shape or form, and I attribute that to the studies done both here on Pixelation and how I've learned and grown over time as well. I know that the idea proposed here isn't to truly eliminate working with single pixels, but some of the talk that has arisen about AA not being a worthwhile exercise and stating that pixel art that is smooth enough to be vector art shouldn't have been pixeled at all just did not sit quite well with me. :-[Perhaps that's because it didn't actually occur?
Helm's statementQuoteit can be said that a tour de force of super-AA smooth pixel art seems to devolve: it looks like vector art and one has to wonder why it isn't vector art, then.
.. can you honestly say this truly expresses the sentiment that 'pixel art that is smooth enough to be vector art shouldn't have been pixeled at all'?
This does, however, still seem like it's splitting hairs about how pixel art should be used, though. I understand that it is sort of a "what if" question and not adamantly trying to discourage incredibly smooth pixel art, but I've seen similar posts thrown around about demoscene pixel art or other incredibly detailed pixel works (whether they be close to realism, digital paintings, vectors, etc.) that often consist of "this looks like X kind of art. why didn't you just do it with X?"Assuming that you're saying it out of curiosity and not smartassitude, that's a worthwhile question. Why didn't they? Is it because they get something personally out of that particular method? Because it helps them structure the image better? Because it's actually harder to achieve by the other means? Because they're deep in their comfort zone and are tempted to avoid new methods?
Should we question how and what ways pixels are utilized? I think that is an interesting question, honestly. I mean, we do of course to an extent. We don't qualify oekaki-type art as pixel art, as the fundamentals of pixel art are "control over the pixels" so, yes, we do question in a sense how pixels are utilized. How should we apply this question, though, and to what kind of pixel art? And if so, is it necessary to do so?I think that it's necessary for the artist to do so -- for their own art, be it pixelled or not. All methods are simply proxies for our actual intent, so if we repeatedly use methods that are contrary to our intent, that tends to become a problem of underachievement / self-sabotage. No methods are exempt on any level from examination, although methods that are currently effective have an indefinitely-long stay of execution ;)
by doubling-size and then re-pixeling over the previous version to bring it back to 1:1 pixel resolution.(http://www.pixeljoint.com/files/icons/experimental.gif)
Yes, how do you feel the result?On some areas it has cleaned up excessive aa and I enjoy the simplicity, overall it feels like trying to pixel with one hand tied behind my back. It certainly has a more 'pixelly' look, it's a bit low-fi for me though. It's satisfying to make clusters click, so it's probably a worthwhile exercise on less complicated images.
Nice job :)
Single pixels in the hand and wrist look pretty fixable, I guess you didn't get around to it yet?
The question is: is it necessary? To me, it doesn't seem to be the point to eliminate each and every single/isolated pixel that exists on the canvas, but rather avoid them where possible.
QuoteThe question is: is it necessary? To me, it doesn't seem to be the point to eliminate each and every single/isolated pixel that exists on the canvas, but rather avoid them where possible.
Necessary? Personally I don't think so. I won't abandon the single pixel for future stuff I make because I still think it has its uses. But I'll be cutting down on using it quite a bit.
But as an exercise I thought the point was to push yourself to find new solutions to the regular one-pixel fallback whenever possible, even when you think a single pixel might be more ideal. And imo it's very possible here.
(http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz263/ErekT_Pixel/vagrant_skel_zps4da7858d.gif)
I have to say that the double pixel 45 degree lines and generally fattened up outline stuff does not look great to me in most cases. It works better in some, like the back of the head of Viewtiful Joe, than others, such as long 45 degree lines, imo.
Also the fact that a line like this should be lighter than the colour it is intended to be, due to rules of antialias and if not done right a diagonal fattened line will look significantly thicker than a straight line).
It's already influencing my own works.
But I'll still keep my single pixels where I need them. Now they are so much fewer.
Going back and re-doing an old piece can be a pain. It's most effective when you do it from the ground up, again.
Conclusion: Awesome thread and exercise.
I have to say that the double pixel 45 degree lines and generally fattened up outline stuff does not look great to me in most cases.I agree with this. the fat 45 degree lines tend to be the clunkiest issue I come across using this method. This is a good practice for learning to create ideal clusters, but following the 'no single pixels' method too strictly limits the amount of solutions to pixel-pushing problems. In my opinion, it's best to use this method in moderation and still allow for plenty of single pixel usage. There is a difference between 'stray' or 'trapped' single pixels, and single pixels that serve a necessary function.
...
I like the general idea of keeping clusters efficient, but I do not see the problem with single pixel outlines at all
It is if you allow 45 degree connections, but it's a bit of a leap.:'(
It is if you allow 45 degree connections, but it's a bit of a leap.What about multi-color Clusters? I feel if the contrast is low enough it could work although, it would probably look better fixed. I whipped up an example with two 45 connections. In this case, they could be easily solved, but in a more chaotic situation, they may not be able to. Its a bad example, but I don't have anything better on hand.
I wish people would stop calling stuff Oekaki.I actually just went and looked this up as I've heard the term a bunch of times but never really understood what it meant.
I'd definitely agree with the meaningless-ness of managing clusters on larger pieces; it's neither challenging nor productive.???
what does the term edge flow meanexactly PixelPiledriver?
Generally edge flow is a term used in 3D modelling when you describe how the edges/lines of a model flow to describe the surface.Yes I'm trying to relate the ideas here to other ideas about art.
I have been playing around with this a bit on some of my older images, nothing really to show, but I came to the following conclusions.
- It is pointless to do this in an image which has AA, because you totally kill diagonal AA and hamper the potential of AA in general, which in a lot of cases actually changes the shape of the curve you might wanna portrait.
- If you aim to make art without any AA, I still do not see how the no single pixels/no single pixel lines (esp this) helps your image.
- It largely seems to come down to personal aethetic preferences if you like this or not. I personally don't (the no-single-pixel at-all-and-weird-fat-outlines paradigm)
- Everyone should just try and pixel as clean or as messy as they want.
Lovely, Cure. I think it's quite sharper.
[...] scroll horisontally [...] brush-strokes that cohere to the direction of the movement
Crow: to me, at 1x zoom one is immediately sharper than the other, but then again I've trained my eyes on this concept for some time now.
But do you see why for other people it might not be important to be mathematically correct in conveying a curve, or at least as important as it is to not have to use single pixels to do it? Because they might be losing some other coherency in their picture by doing that, and they might find that to be an uneven sacrifice?
Mental challenge: try to think of a pretty vector piece. Zoom in on it gradually in your mind, every shape still being coherent even though everything becomes more abstract and less like 'a real thing' the more you zoom in. Distances between shapes become greater, but the shapes are still readable.
This is an element you would expect for there to exist in an art made of atomic bits, a pixel art. But it doesn't. Because we do not treat single pixels as clusters, but as tapers and connectors of bigger clusters - or even worse, buffers between two large colors (1point aa). We abuse them and they look like burning dots on a canvas the more you look closer.
This is a thread for people who, regardless of how crazy this might all sound in the beginning, after a little bit of testing, might have an 'aha!' moment. I'm not seeking to pressure people into converting into scientology or anything.
... but I do question why a single pixel of anti-aliasing used to define a shape or curve that would otherwise be impossible at a given resolution can't be considered part of a cluster?
... but I do question why a single pixel of anti-aliasing used to define a shape or curve that would otherwise be impossible at a given resolution can't be considered part of a cluster?
I just tell people that we pay more attention to the pixels when they are bigger, and less attention to how everything meshes together into a whole.
That has pretty much been my definition for a long time: a cluster is a stack of clusters 1-or-more high (usually with brightness increasing as you go up the stack). Inkscape's Trace Bitmap function also implements an algorithm based on this idea and creates highly coherent results.
I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think a cluster should always be defined as a group of pixels of the same shade, but rather as a group of pixels that are read as one clump.
Edit:Yeah, going by the hair, we're on the same page here.
Here's an example of an edit I made (top) to a sprite Slym made that I think illustrates my point about single pixels appearing to be part of a cluster of surrounding pixels that still hold up once upscaled:
(http://oi46.tinypic.com/a2wzcy.jpg)
I'd have to practice a lot to see what that means intuitively for my own art
Fantastic thread. I've been looking at it for a long time, today I finally set out to try it. I feel the most appropriate name for this process is defragmentation.That's an excellent name for the pixel art version of this.
I found moreso than ever, I was catering to the pixels themselves rather than the drawing. That is, it's not as accurate as a painting would be, because (my own personal inaccuracy aside) instead of representing the source faithfully I had to bend to the will of the clusters.Of course, you could still bend more. Arguably the logical extension of these principles is to flatten planes in order to minimize cluster contention, ending up with something that is quite vector-y, which perhaps you could have used on the lips; I perceive them as more detailed than everything else.
1. Banding is probably the most incompatible with defragmentation. In many cases I had to contrive the subject, and especially the details, to avoid it and adhere to the restriction. My question: which, in your mind, takes precedence between the three? Banding, Defragmentation, or Fidelity? I have a feeling you'd say it's on a case by case basis. My personal tendency is to prioritize banding-elimination.I have the same tendency, but I am willing to confidently state that Defragmentation > Banding, due to mentally ranking them by how involved they are in making the overall work hang together. Fidelity is really a different type of thing IMO, fidelity is a rather selective thing in good art IMO -- you decide what aspects are important to capture and then do so. Fidelity to aspects not on that list is mostly a distraction until you reach the stages of seriously polishing the work.
2. Why does this work? What is it about the absence of orphan clusters that makes good pixel art?Personally I believe 'regularization' addresses this question.
3. AA was discussed earlier in the thread, as something that is less necessary. Wouldn't sharper screens make AA more necessary than before? Or did I misunderstand that point
E: Found more single pixels.
It is more general than this specific process but captures the reasons for applying it.
In simple terms, regularization is tuning or selecting the preferred level of model complexity so your models are better at predicting (generalizing). If you don't do this your models may be too complex and overfit or too simple and underfit, either way giving poor predictions.
Personally I believe 'regularization' addresses this question.
Arguably the logical extension of these principles is to flatten planes in order to minimize cluster contention
With sharper screens, the pixels in AA are more apparent, but with higher-pixel-density screen, each individual pixel is less apparent.
Hmm. It helps to understand spline math, or gaussian blurring, I guess. There is the concept of quality of fit, but more important in this case, there is the idea of how well fitted things are to the things surrounding them.QuoteIn simple terms, regularization is tuning or selecting the preferred level of model complexity so your models are better at predicting (generalizing). If you don't do this your models may be too complex and overfit or too simple and underfit, either way giving poor predictions.
So if I'm getting this right, this is a less complex model, because it doesn't account for information that single clusters would. Or is it more complex because it has more rules?
Yes you're right, fidelity is selective. I guess coming from a traditional background I'm so used to it being the point, but I'm starting to see how it's not the point with pixels.
What you're saying is defragmenting is even more the point than banding elimination, that banding is almost accessory. I think I can see that.Yeah, I like to kill banding, but realistically, it adds maybe 2-5% rendering quality, and the conclusion I think we've more or less agreed on in this thread is that solid clusters constitute 70-80% rendering quality -- which is enough to make a picture hang together, and coming back and doing debanding and AA is something that can go into a separate pass without noticable influence on how the assets work.
Yes, if you were to take it a step further it would then be a matter of reducing the clusters themselves (like with the lips). Interesting... this makes a sort of gradient, then, with perhaps dithering on one extreme and large, flat planes on the other. Similar to how banding has its own spectrum of very obvious to less obvious. So then, how you find balance between the two spectrums, I think that would be a useful discussion.I'm not sure what to contribute to that discussion, but I agree.
(http://i.imgur.com/z60FyAn.png)
Hmm. I may be a bit out of touch here. I am aware that some games scale up their art, but I had no idea how prevalent this was.QuoteWith sharper screens, the pixels in AA are more apparent, but with higher-pixel-density screen, each individual pixel is less apparent.
This I follow, but I guess I had the underlying assumption that people aren't viewing pixel art at 1x on our modern screens. I always thought that pixel art was designed for smaller resolutions, even today where the games that use it either scale it up or have a low native resolution, which would make AA more important, since screens are indeed sharper.
Wwhich, in your mind, takes precedence between the three? Banding, Defragmentation, or Fidelity? I have a feeling you'd say it's on a case by case basis. My personal tendency is to prioritize banding-elimination.
2. Why does this work? What is it about the absence of orphan clusters that makes good pixel art?
3. AA was discussed earlier in the thread, as something that is less necessary. Wouldn't sharper screens make AA more necessary than before? Or did I misunderstand that point
4. After a year of practice, where do the single and double pixel stand in your mind? As I understand it this exercise is meant to strengthen the integrity of your clusters, so that the single pixel becomes a tool, not a crutch. But there were many places where I knew single pixel AA would be the best solution, I merely refrained. I'm sure you don't think single pixels should be abolished; where do you feel they're appropriate?
On bit restrictions: Also why would bit restriction exclude grays?Well, look at an example, Amstrad CPC:
MCGA screen mode (often called "VGA" 320x200x256) seems to have a precision of only R6G6B6. (64 levels of R G B)Not for color choice generally, but desaturated colors are still a bit lacking -- it was an issue that came up when I was designing the new default palette for OHRRPGCE. I'd go up to about 192 levels of R G B before I'm -really- satisfied with choice of desaturated colors.
Is there somebody who worked with this mode, who can say if this felt like a limitation in color choice ?
MCGA screen mode (often called "VGA" 320x200x256) seems to have a precision of only R6G6B6. (64 levels of R G B)
Is there somebody who worked with this mode, who can say if this felt like a limitation in color choice ?
Even The Amiga's 444 isn't much of a hinderance unless you're doing copper stuff or long 32 color mode ramps. I guess, if the gradient is so smooth you can't see the transitions, it stops being pixel art anyways because there is no pixel definition. I do recall some instances where a hue shift "one step up" in a ramp has been unwanted though.Yeah, for individual sprites it's no problem and even helpful, for long gradients like in a 256c master palette, it messes around with saturation and hue when you go to fill in intermediate colors. (basically why I designed the new OHRRPGCE palette with amiga 444, then went to VGA 666 and eventually full 888 when it became available, to get easier-to-work with midcolors. The result had to be usable and understandable by people without much understanding of pixel art or color theory, and it had to have long (15/16c) ramps.)
As for going lower, it's interesting how such stepping produces colors almost the opposite of what we see on photos where the most common colors stretches from the black corner of the color cube to the white, diagonally through the grays bulging like a grain of rice.I'm not sure what the opposite of 'the most common colors stretches from the black corner of the color cube to the white, diagonally through the grays bulging like a grain of rice.' would be. Are you proposing a concave rather than convex shape occurs, wide at black and white and narrow in the middle, like an hourglass with the outside corners bevelled flat?
I realised after reading this that I'd kind of been doing the channel restriction thing already just cause it was satisfying to me, the colours felt more pure or something. It hadn't occurred to me that it had any basis in history. Having been told that I ran with it on my newest piece (http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/92609.htm) and I think the colours turned out really nice. Of course I went with 5 values per channel which makes no sense in terms of bits but it came up with a really interesting palette. Does anyone smarter than me know of a way to generate the whole palette with those restrictions?In Gimp, you can generate RGB colorcubes using 3 layers, a bit of pencil tool work, a bit of scaling, the filters->Map->Tile filter (or copy/paste), and Colors->Components->Compose filter. Just keep in mind that the image must be Grayscale, not RGB, for the Compose filter to be available.
import itertools
alltriples = itertools.product(rintensities, gintensities, bintensities)
.import itertools
intensities = [0, 0x3f, 0x7f, 0xbf, 0xff]
alltriples = itertools.product(intensities, intensities, intensities)
Of course! Now that you've told me it's so obvious :lol:. Very cool tool in gimp also, tried doing it in photoshop but I guess all channels are not created equal or something according to adobe.Yeah, pretty sure you can do it in photoshop, but no idea how.
Definitely want to get my hands on a copy of ProMotion but the Australian Dollar is so weak right now I can't quiiiiite justify the expense. I remember seeing it used years ago in the recorded pixel art thread though and the colour handling looks far superior to GraphicsGale. Between that and the tiling tools I might cave on it soon.Well, that is with a <= 16-color display (ie. you can pick 16 of the 27 for your usable palette), so the actual number of bits per pixel is still whole.
Interesting about the CPC. I obviously don't have all the relevant knowledge but I'd assumed odd numbered palettes wouldn't exist.
I worked a lot in 555 for GBA and DS stuff, and I never felt like that was a limitation at all.
I agree. 555 might as well be 24bit, as far as pixel artistry goes.
Ai: Hm, the 3D cube looks like CPC colours and the small cube does not. Are they supposed to be the same? Is there some weird colou profile active on the small png?Hmm? I don't think I have posted a CPC cube in this thread. The only 3x3x3 I posted was the YCbCr cube in my recent post, which AFAIK isn't a master palette used by any real system.
I was surprised that "Level mode (stretched, clipped)" did not effect the result of Bits per channelI'm not sure what you mean. They only effect how the number of levels (which can be calculated from a bit depth) are evaluated at 8-bit per channel.
(.. and I just now realized that Level mode was supposed to specifically be a part of the Levels section. That's a formatting issue -- My quick-and-dirty html skills would probably have stuck it in a blockquote to clarify its subordinateness)Hopefully the current formatting is clearer.
I'm not sure what you mean. They only effect how the number of levels (which can be calculated from a bit depth) are evaluated at 8-bit per channel.Well, to my mind, bits per channel is a compact way of specifying levels per channel -- 2 means 2**2 == 4 levels, 4 means 2**4 == 16 levels, etc. Which is why it made sense to me that the setting for how these N intensities were mapped to the 0..255 continuum would be shared between them -- bpc is just a different notation for entering number of levels.
Levels per channel seems to be quite fucked if you do weird numbers, like 2, 3, 255. The output makes no sense at all.Whoops, yes.
Also you should be a able to have 256 steps not just 255. 0-255 = 256 steps.
Whoops, yes.Just did some more testing. The cases I report above are still bugged, for BPC mode, and Levels per channel still seems to have a bug -- eg levels (2,3,4) == wrong(only 3 levels of B are used, the fourth tile uses #0 again)
Fixed the level count. Though with all 256 and swatch size bigger than 1 will probably produce an image too big for the browser to handle.
I had the green and blue levels mixed up so if they were different it'd be gibberish. Fixed now.
Still something wrong with BGR.
Surt: why can I not enter just 0 bits or levels as well? What if I want a palette without one of the channels?Because I forgot that 1-1=0. Not zero levels (must always be at least one level of each component, even if that level is zero), but zero bits now.
Oh, btw, just tried Centre intensity mapping, I like the softening effect -- basically the same thing I was trying to achieve with my curves adjustment. I'd probably edit it afterwards so almost-white was actual white and almost-black was actual black, though.I've been thinking it might be usefully to add some post processing functions such as gamma/bias, gain, brightness and contrast to allow some colour fiddling? Separate values per channel?