Requesting a new sticky thread

[Arne]

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.

[Ai]

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).

I agree with this, including the caveat.

3x is a bit less reliable, depending on how large the source is (3x 320x240 -> 1280x960)

So you just meant ballpark levels of accuracy in reproducing picture size, then.

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]http://[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.

Ah, and now we see what it's really about.

It looks like you can make an image that links to another image in BBCode (eg. the first one being 2x, and the second being 1x), although on Pixelation this effectively disables the click zooming.
EDIT: I take that back. looks like the url tag works in preview, but gets stripped off the actual post. Confusing.
I guess the best multires solution is just putting a '1x' link next to the image.

Personally I use a shell script with ImageMagick to generate 2x versions when needed. Thanks for the idea, I just added BBCode and html template generation to it. Now if only there was a decent CLI upload tool I could hook it into.

[Mathias]

. . .
3x is a bit less reliable, depending on how large the source is (3x 320x240 -> 1280x960)
. . .

But it wouldn't do that. It would just do it like it does now - blowing up images with a multiplier equal to the image. Percentage-based.

Like dis


So [imgx3] blows it up 300%, not 3x.

Right?

[Seiseki]

but 300% and 3x is the same thing 

[Mathias]

Oh you're right, same effect. I was really thinking.
But also, I guess I was just saying that this tag, if implemented, would just have the same effect as the current script.

Or . . .

are we talkin' server-side image processing? Where, if scaling was applied to the image, it's not just styling, but that the image is actually processed and its size permanently changed? If a tag handled that, it would just be applied once and then it's done. Would it remain in the post's BBC markup?

Mehhhhh what do I care, I use Chrome haha . . .

[Ai]

I was just saying that this tag, if implemented, would just have the same effect as the current script.

That's what I intended when I wrote that suggestion, yes.

I just realized I derped the math though, it should be 960x720, which is less problematic (although it may still take up a majority of the vertical space on smaller screens).

[Arne]

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.

[ptoing]

I think your pixelart should look good at 1x. And it should look good at 4x and higher. I personally do not have problem with 4x and larger pixels. I like it chunky. If that does not work for you, as far as games go, make something like a good scanline filter and take off the edge (pun intended).

One big drawback from posting stuff on here at 2x would be that the zoom would be like 2x, 4x, 8x, compared to the original 1x.

[Anarkhya]

I think your pixelart should look good at 1x.

Interesting point, theoretically.
I personally don't like how some of my pixels look at 100%, especially those I made with a 200% target output, at 100% I just don't recognize what I drew, everything seems to lack texture, now I'm wondering if this highlights an issue in drawing or not..

[Helm]

I've never seen a single piece of pixel art that I thought looked bad at 1x but better at 2x or more.