Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Arne
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 44

61
Pixel Art Feature Chest / Re: First try (help..)
« on: August 27, 2013, 05:58:55 pm »
I'm just doing my thing here, but maybe there's something for you to use in there:

Metallic: I like to do nonlinear gradients such as (1). Sometimes I pop the highlight, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I don't even go up into the brights. Too many highlights are distracting, so place them at points of focus.

Linear gradients like (2) can be useful but are mostly not useful for describing form and contrast.They're just sort of easy to make (IT'S A TRAP!).

What else. Yes, I often add a dirt and sky color to my silvers. Planes facing down tend to reflect warm colors, and planes facing up tend to reflect cool sky colors. If we're outside playing in dirt that is (knights often were, I suspect).

On a small character like this you generally don't need a whole lot of colors. There's simply no room for elaborate gradients. Each pixel is more likely to play a role in showing some kind of detail or contrast point.


62
Pixel Art / Re: Futuristic tiles/ other things
« on: August 27, 2013, 11:36:48 am »
This is looking real nice! Maybe the volume sculpting on the green robot/guy is a bit strange with the highlight popping (competing with the eyes?) and the various hues in the shade makes the whole figure a bit muddy looking.  Subtractive internal black/dark lines also tend to make a figure a bit muddy looking. Why not use an approach similar to that used on the terrain (where contrast is used to create invisible lines).

Played around with it and went off at a tangent, perhaps.


63
Pixel Art / Re: To outline or not
« on: August 26, 2013, 08:16:29 pm »
I like to do a shadow type outline when I'm unsure... i.e. a darker outline at the bottom of the forms and a colored one at the top, or a lost one (partially none).

The problem with this approach is that the figure can look like a cardboard cutout if the internal details are low contrast.

Quick PO. Couldn't really tell what was going on with her garb.

64
General Discussion / Re: Requesting a new sticky thread
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:51:24 pm »
We might be talking about different things, Helm. I'm just saying I can better appreciate pixel art at 2x. I might be able to appreciate it at 1x too, but then I'd have to put my nose to the monitor unless it's a HD fighter game or a smiley. I can't appreciate pixel art at all from 1km away, to use an extreme.

You're probably talking about the difficulty of ... taking a nicely pixeled 64*32 character and making it 32*16 and having it look better. I'd agree that it's difficult but your definition of "better" is probably narrow as it appears to be suggesting that more definition on character = better, which is not always the case, and it also ignores the appeal which comes with knowing that a piece was done by beautifully utilizing limited resources.

And making highrez pixel art is also a lot more difficult and time consuming, so that 2x lowrez piece might actually end up looking better anyways due to limited time and available talent.


65
General Discussion / Re: Requesting a new sticky thread
« on: August 25, 2013, 07:16:05 pm »
To me it's about readability and presentation which I think suffers at small sizes. You can still read an e-book with a font set to 3pts but it's just not very pleasant even if the story doesn't suffer. When I work in PS I find that keeping a 200% or 300% zoomed copy of my canvas next to my 1600% working one is ideal... at 1x or 16x I can't quite judge what's happening to the pixel cohesion and neighboring. I have to use a similar approach for human faces which I also keep in a separate window comfortably zoomed. It's a hightech version of backing away from the painting.

My urge to view (most) pixel art at 2x is as strong as... keeping a certain distance from a painting in an art museum. On top of all this there's of course the appeal of visible pixels.

66
General Discussion / Re: Requesting a new sticky thread
« on: August 23, 2013, 02:00:35 pm »
Yes, I think that there's a great degree of tolerance for which sizes work well for pixel art (ignoring special cases of for-TV pixel art). I'd argue that in most cases, 2x and 3x (300%) falls within this tolerance whilst 1x and 4x (400%) does not. A pixel artist probably doesn't "intend" to have his sprites viewed 1x. Stuff can of course be saved (losslessly compressed) to 1x and several bytes can be saved, but I'd sacrifice those bytes myself, for presentation's sake.

I'm not saying that the zoom script is useless. I just prefer to have the images 2x'ed as default myself. Scaling an image before saving it is not an inconvenience for me. Here be aforementioned Photoshop macros:



No clue if Graphics Gale supports something like that. Never used it.

67
General Discussion / Re: Requesting a new sticky thread
« on: August 22, 2013, 01:08:43 pm »
24" 1920x1200 + 22" 1200x1920 here.

2x'ed pixel art will look OK or Great on pretty much any common PC monitor in my experience, but I haven't been using high PPI retina displays for work or surf (i.e. smartphone or MacBook). 4x can sometimes look a bit too chunky and overly jaggy so in emulators I often stay at 2x Windowed. 1x is vulture neck + squint unless you're using an ancient 640x480 CRT or something.

A zoom argument or just [img2x] [img3x] would be nice though. Personally I type out forum tags by hand so shorter would be better.

However, I sometimes cross-post so I much prefer baking in 2x. Most art forums don't have 2x scripts, and since I hand type all HTML for my pages, already having the image in 2x speeds things up, and I won't have to worry about which browser or script blocker someone is using.




68
General Discussion / Re: Requesting a new sticky thread
« on: August 21, 2013, 08:51:54 pm »
1: It doesn't work well in some browsers (blurs in chrome, and I use various script blockers since I'm paranoid).

2: Everyone should post their images at the size they are actually meant to be viewed at, which probably isn't ant size. Why the extra step of clicking on the ants? It's easy enough to flip flop back and forth with a scaling macro when doing editing.

69
Pixel Art Feature Chest / Re: THE CLUSTER STUDY THREAD!
« on: August 21, 2013, 04:33:54 pm »
Hard to salvage that Ptera without being familiar with the rest of the frames.


70
Pixel Art Feature Chest / Re: THE CLUSTER STUDY THREAD!
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:47:09 pm »
What a nonsense guy. Tried to find more info on his anatomy.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/r-type/screenshots

Made a sloppy sheet from above sshots, and version of my own (still a bit greebly):

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 44