Post by: smiker on October 12, 2007, 08:39:16 pm
please zoom :)
(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2073/subpixelks7.gif)
(http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/7447/smikertw3.png)
^^ i luv them too much
Post by: infinitegames on October 12, 2007, 09:20:29 pm
Post by: ptoing on October 12, 2007, 09:27:07 pm
Post by: ZoSo on October 12, 2007, 09:34:41 pm
Post by: smiker on October 12, 2007, 09:37:17 pm
:)
Post by: ptoing on October 12, 2007, 11:54:20 pm
Post by: Crow on October 13, 2007, 07:10:26 am
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/602/subpixelgv7.gif)
Post by: Rosse on October 13, 2007, 08:36:08 am
http://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm
This is the basic approach which is used by the new macs to make their fonts smoother (When you have a Mac, use [CTRL]+Scroll-Wheel, and see what happens). With this technique it is possible to adress the displays lightdots an a smaller level than the regular pixels.
What Crow showed is just AA, when I'm correct, cuz he uses the complete nearby Pixels and is not trying to adress the specific lightdots of the screen through pixel manually red/green/blue pixels at the end of the square. I think ptoing or baccaman showed this somwhere in this forum (can't find the thread right now)
Post by: ptoing on October 13, 2007, 09:54:16 am
(http://www.ptoing.net/subpixel_aa2.png)
No aa, subpixel rgb aa, 1 pixel classic and 2 pixel classic aa.
The technique where you animate something smoother TECHNICALLY speaking is not subpixel at all, just antialiased animation. The term subpixel animation just is being used for that for some reason.
Post by: smiker on October 13, 2007, 10:16:35 am
i dont think this is as the workmode of a monitor, to make white we need three subpixels at max power (rgb, each one at max value)
so in this pic....a monitor would show nothing (taking away the fact that a subpixel cant be white color...
truly, i don't know what it is, but i can say that my pics shows how a monitor works - perfectly, as you can observe that there isn't any colors but red, green and blue, and that can demonstrate to anybody that don't believe it (i have one of that people next to me), that the light is composed of three channels
Post by: Jad on October 13, 2007, 10:22:30 am
The only real benefit of real subpixelling is making letters crisper and less jaggy.
(http://www.ptoing.net/subpixel_aa2.png)
No aa, subpixel rgb aa, 1 pixel classic and 2 pixel classic aa.
The technique where you animate something smoother TECHNICALLY speaking is not subpixel at all, just antialiased animation. The term subpixel animation just is being used for that for some reason.
I guess you could say that either you speak about the REAL subpixels, the ones that build up every whole pixel,
or you speak about the 'virtual sub-pixel space' which is the non-existant field between two pixels, which you trick the eye into seeing.
And so, 'virtual sub-pixel space animation' is obviously the name we should use for subpixel animation :D
Or not. But it sounds hightech and cool :D
Post by: sharprm on October 13, 2007, 10:34:29 am
(http://www.grc.com/image/cleartype16.gif)
i dont think this is as the workmode of a monitor, to make white we need three subpixels at max power (rgb, each one at max value)
so in this pic....a monitor would show nothing (taking away the fact that a subpixel cant be white color...
I think they are talking about a white A on a black background. So, where you have a square with only one red third and two white thirds, it is a red pixel, whereas a pixel with one blue third
would be blue. It would be the reverse of Ptoing's example.
edit: Actually, wouldn't a green pixel simulate the first and third being black and middle white. But that doesn't make sense for the top of the A he has. Should he use purple? ???
Post by: smiker on October 13, 2007, 10:44:12 am
but here's the question: if a subpixel is colored full red, have its other channels to antialiase with the other channels on the adjacents subpixels?
i don't understand it at all.....lol
Post by: Conzeit on October 14, 2007, 07:13:36 pm
The technique where you animate something smoother TECHNICALLY speaking is not subpixel at all, just antialiased animation. The term subpixel animation just is being used for that for some reason.I guess you can blame me for that one.
Back in the Metal Slug Comercial Critique...when I wanted to explain their AA animation it just felt like it was sub-pixel because with AA animation you need an awareness of the sprite that went above what your resolution was...in a sense a sub-pixel awareness of the sprite.
maybe we should just call it AAnimation :p
Post by: Rox on October 16, 2007, 09:47:46 pm
Pretty dang cool pic, sniker. And it'd also make a good learning tool if someone doesn't understand how TV and computer screens work!
Post by: Lawrence on October 16, 2007, 11:22:50 pm
I don't mind calling it sub-pixel animation, because you are animating something in a fashion that makes it appear to move in increments smaller than one pixel.
And that is, by definition, antialiasing. We already have a word for it. If you use "sub-pixel aa" to describe what is really "whole-pixel aa" you might as well start calling apples oranges.
Btw here's an image I made for this aa business a while ago: (http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j62/drain-body-confirmed/sub.gif)
Post by: Helm on October 18, 2007, 09:09:41 am
Post by: robotacon on October 18, 2007, 01:11:11 pm
I always thought "subpixel" meant you used anti-aliasing to create movement that was smaller than one pixel.
What is subpixeling without animation other than plain old AA?
But I understand that there is this other red-green-blue subpixel rendering that takes into account where the RGB color dots are on a screen/LCD.
I wish it had a different name or I'll have to start saying "Animated Anti Aliasing" or "triple A" or something to that effect.
Post by: Lawrence on October 18, 2007, 06:53:56 pm
This is empty academia. The whole point of manual AA is to create the illusion of subpixel smoothness. Either name works, it describes the same thing.Subpixel AA and 'Normal' whole-pixel AA are definitely not the same method and they arguably do not have the exact same perceived effect, so I think it's wrong to use their names interchangeably because it leads to confusion as robotacon's last post has shown.
Post by: Helm on October 18, 2007, 07:27:39 pm
All AA for me has subpixel aspirations. You intend to convey a smoothness that isn't there, that isn't allowed by the steps in the resolution. That's exactly what subpixel techniques in non pixel-art contexts attempt, though their methodology might be different (as in dealing with the composite parts of the monitor operation).
I am not sure what you mean when you say whole-pixel aa. Everything in your presentation screen is whole-pixel. The effect is an effect, there are no actual divisions of the pixels in what you shown, are there? All AA is illusionary in trying to convey subpixel smoothness.
Now, why is this term useful and why not just use AA for everything? Because telling someone to use subpixel animation is a different thing than telling him 'smooth your shit out, man'. It's telling him to do slow movement, basically. Less that a full pixel's worth, try to fake it.
Post by: ptoing on October 18, 2007, 07:44:35 pm
(http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/upload/features/03_mirre/aaapprox.png)
All aa is approximisation.
The only difference there is is that subpixel aa as in for fonts on tft/lcd screens is that there is a bigger illusion of higher resolution, but then again outside of black and white this very specific technique is not usable much.
Post by: Joel on October 20, 2007, 02:08:21 am
On the other hand, I read that article and realised that it is a handy tool but a little too much to think about, especially if we can't edit these sort of things at a normal level of magnification, because for pixel pushers we need a 3x3 square to represent each pixel.
Post by: baccaman21 on October 20, 2007, 04:16:29 pm
Does sub pixel rendering make anyone else's eyes feel like they are bleeding?
On the other hand, I read that article and realised that it is a handy tool but a little too much to think about, especially if we can't edit these sort of things at a normal level of magnification, because for pixel pushers we need a 3x3 square to represent each pixel.
excuse me? come again... er what? sorry I'm confused... ??? :huh:
Post by: Lawrence on November 05, 2007, 07:22:03 pm
The only difference there is is that subpixel aa as in for fonts on tft/lcd screens is that there is a bigger illusion of higher resolution, but then again outside of black and white this very specific technique is not usable much.
I disagree, it could be a deciding factor for aa colour choice at any time. Look close at this on an rgb LCD monitor without zooming:
Imagine the red circle is part of a piece with a limited palette and a person wanted to aa the edges and the only colour they could do it with was a blue. If they did that, they would get that awful looking mess of sub pixel artifacts on the right hand side. The same goes for the green blob in the same box, if a person doesn't think about subpixel aa, then this could happen without them realizing it (in fact I saw a piece on Pixel Joint not too long ago where this had happened and it stood out like a sore thumb.) Inversely, if the person factors in sub pixels into their choice of aa, then they will get aa which is arguably smoother than if a dark-green had been used, as seen in the green blob on the right.
Post by: ptoing on November 05, 2007, 08:41:17 pm
Post by: TrevoriuS on November 05, 2007, 08:45:17 pm
Post by: smiker on January 21, 2010, 04:13:18 pm
Does sub pixel rendering make anyone else's eyes feel like they are bleeding?
On the other hand, I read that article and realised that it is a handy tool but a little too much to think about, especially if we can't edit these sort of things at a normal level of magnification, because for pixel pushers we need a 3x3 square to represent each pixel.
Sorry about bumping this old topic. but i wanted to check out a little thing...
IF IT DOESN'T EXIST YET...
Do you think it'd be valuable to have a GFX tool able to switch between SubPixel and Pixel paint modes?
I want this info because maybe it can be added to my 2010 todo list.
If bumping this thread was a bad idea, please just close it. Ty.