NEW CLUSTER STUDY THREAD!

[RAV]

I don't believe that all useful insight into cluster theory has originated first, and must originate in all things further, solely from what we call pixel art today, before we can move forward, or that there'd be no synergy in this quest, I believe much of your inspiration to form your thoughts on this has been interdisciplinary to begin with, but for now it seems difficult to align our special interests. Maybe some other day. I see you have much to think about as is, and so have I, neither of us depends on the other. I'll refrain from further deviance here.

[Cyangmou]

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.

Yeah, there is the vectory pixel art around (e.g. Panda's work) and yeah I also doubt that this kind of style is optimal for pixel art.
And overly smooth AA also seems to wash away the sharpness we want to have emphasized.
I mean if a piece of art should have this kind of look, an artist would go and use a vector program and he won't have to deal with getting it smooth at all.
I mean in terms of efficience it's definitely a bad choice, you spend first a lot of time with creating the piece and then you have to smoothen out every single bit of it, if there are lines in it it gets even harder to make them consistent in thickness with AA
I mean for showcasing that you completely understood how good you are with AAing it's ok
the bad side about this is that there are lots of single pixels and it looks really blurred if you look at it at 200% or bigger

(example for all who don't know Panda)



vector or pixel at 100% ?

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.

yeah, I don't talked about good mixed palettes. It's possible to use each shade to it's maximum.
I mean if you do a technique over and over again and you just get used to it and it gets second nature to you it's really hard to let it go - especially if your sense for aesthetics is telling that there is something missing.
However the question is if we should see AA just as time eater and "bad habit" if we change our style aesthetics to the cluster approach.

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).

I think if we leave out half part of the technique leaving it all out at won't really hurt. "gimmicky" describes it quite good.
I mean AA is one of the first techniques which a person who is new to pixel art learns and it needs time to fully understand it. Pixel artists just look for AA in pixel art pieces because they expect they would miss something if it'snot there.

Your systematic way would be great to know of - I mean I am usually solving it just with intention


But there are occasions where you might need single AA Pixels - the thing I am talking about are perfect circles - gets really hard to smoothen out a round edge without them. Or leving them out completely

Because I am lazy I am just using Cure's examples.
any need to "fix" it with a cluster approach?
Or just don't thinking of AA at all?

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.

90% of banding occurs if you have too many colors in too less space.
I think the tetris jumble allows more banding because if we start looking closer at it, the whole art looks tidy because of intentionally aligned forms. I suppose the cluster-form impression is then percepted stronger as if there are just thrown in pixels so to say.
I mean the polymino approach (if used strongly for detailled bits) lets the whole thing look more and more like a pattern if you look closer.

[Dex]

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.

Elk's incredibly large and detailed dragon pixel art--- could that have been created digitally in Photoshop as opposed to pixels? Surely. It doesn't change the fact that his artwork was impressive, incredibly intricate, and well crafted. He didn't waste any time by not making it in Photoshop instead because it was his choice to utilize pixels in a way that he enjoyed controlling and working with.

The same goes for this concept-- the concept of clusters and "incredibly clean pixel art" is surely interesting and can indeed help us decide where we place our pixels in the future, but I have qualms with the idea that we should eliminate single pixels from the process or dismiss the ideas of dithering and AA for the sake of a more optimal sort of pixel art, since we can't clearly define that term. What the ideal pixel art image should be composed of is entirely opinion based.

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. Lines like "the bad side about this is that there are lots of single pixels and it looks really blurred if you look at it at 200% or bigger"-- the "bad side?" How is that a bad side? It's entirely up to the viewer. Panda's image shows mastery of several pixel art concepts, and containing single pixels does not constitute a "bad side" in my opinion.

I don't think Helm's original intention with this topic was to propose changing the fundamentals of pixel art entirely, but some of the ideas and arguments that have arisen just seem contrary to the idea of pixel art being just that-- an art form composed of pixels. From my perspective, how we utilize these pixels should not be routinized nor categorized.

[r4c7]

I don't mean to drag this out into a new AA thread, but I whipped an example up. I'm sure what I'm going to say has been said before, but its been on my mind, so I'll let it out.

I find it interesting how the different contrast levels affect aa. in A with 100% contrast, aa is definitely needed. I also had  to use two aa colors to make it look right. B, with 50% contrast, only needed 1 aa color. C, 25% contrast, there is no aa and it looks fine. Its interesting how contrast effects the need for aa.

Then all of a sudden, I thought how these rules apply to dithering. (Top is dither, bottom mixed color. In C, all are dither)

With A, there is no room to use 2 extra colors to aa between the black and white, so it looks bad. B looks okay. C it is hardly noticeable there is a dither pattern.

It's kind of like dithering is a type anti-alias arranged in a tight repeating pattern, if that makes sense. I'd also be interested to see if it would be possible to make a dither pattern involving more than two colors, maybe even 4, to further support this. I may edit this a bit, or make a new post, about what I'm thinking, but I think I need to go to bed soon to refresh my brain.
I feel like this is borderline gibberish to the more experienced artists here.

[Ai]

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.

 Cyangmou is simply saying 'an efficient artist would not do this, because it's an inefficient means of achieving the effect.'. He's talking about opportunity cost: the fact that time spent on rote, repetitive parts of your image is time that you could have spent on the basic ideas and fundamental grounding of your image. The spirit of the image suffers as a result -- it quite naturally becomes more about technique than concept, because that is how the artist chose to allocate their time.

If you want to do a few images that are just about getting solid AA skills, more power to you, that may well be a smart use of time. But after mastering AA, you go on applying mass amounts of AA, that may not be a smart use of time. It may be a waste of your humanity in a very literal sense; choosing to put technique in when you instead could put a more meaningful part of yourself in.

Similarly, Helm is saying 'This exercise will make you think, try it.', not 'Exterminate all of the isolated pixels'.

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?

Helm's statement

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.

.. 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'?

It's kind of like dithering is a type anti-alias arranged in a tight repeating pattern, if that makes sense.

It's been observed here on Pixelation in the past, that dither is the literal complement of AA : AA trades color resolution for apparent spatial resolution, dither trades spatial resolution for apparent color resolution. I wasn't sure what to make of your post, but perhaps you'll get something out of this idea.

EDIT: most of the most lauded pieces which are heavy on dithering are in category C, btw..

[Dex]

Perhaps it was just the language used, then. I don't mean to start any arguments, of course-- just trying to voice my thoughts to make sure that the inherent ideas of pixel art aren't being challenged.

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?

Helm's statement

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.

.. 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?"

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?

[Ai]

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?
All of these things have implications for their development as an artist.

I feel 100% confident in saying: Helm is very not* a prescriptivist and his question is indeed posed in the spirit of 'what if', much as a majority of his posts here are. He's a careful thinker.


* grammar is correct. or at least intentional

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

For other artists, it's also necessary as a mental exercise, IMO (understanding others' art in order to expand their own repetoire).

It can also be used as a simple 'who's (not) in the in-group?' exercise, and of course I'm as against that as any other form of tribalism. But we can't really take the literal text of questions as an indicator of whether the question is honest or merely political. Context is necessary, and I believe in-context, Helm's and Cyangmou's questions can be seen as clearly in the general spirit of an inquiring mind.

A last thought:
You could view the idea of developing the ideal of X (pixel art, cubist art, digital art, sculpture) as basically about viewing the medium as a method for teaching yourself certain essential aspects of art. In this sense it's important to define it, in order to determine what exactly that learning curriculum will consist of. You wouldn't want to spend 3x as long as you needed on AA if the subject really consists largely of learning how to tightly+cleanly fit shapes together in pleasing proportion, for example. So this is the case for discussing definitions as a community: because it will help us learn more effectively.

[Dex]

Complete and utter agreement with everything you've said in that post. I definitely agree that the question at hand seems more in the spirit of inquiry than anything else, but hey, that is a point I thought that should be brought up, lest anyone get confused with the intent. Helm and Cyangmou are both very respectable and their questions are surely just ponderings, but I thought I would bring up the other side of the spectrum and question the... questioning in a sense?

I also agree with your perspective on the intent of asking "why was this created with this medium when it could have just as easily been created with this other medium." I believe I've seen both cases, honestly (asking out of curiosity, or asking out of "smartassitude") and thus I suppose it is entirely up to context. I think we should be careful, then, how we go about asking that particular question.

But yeah, you've essentially answered and addressed everything I've said quite well. I guess my next real question at hand is this: does this exercise in working with eliminating single pixels seem to be something that should be incorporated more often and on a regular basis, or is it just truly an exercise-- an excursion into a different way of thinking about the pixels?

[Helm]

Dex, I understand your concerns.

Here's the deal: Pixelation has in the past prescribed what pixel art should be. It could be argued it was necessary at that stage of the craft's maturation process - there was the introduction of the FAQ, and a further amendment of the FAQ. I was leading the charge on that stuff.

It wouldn't surprise anybody here to learn that I have issues with control. Nobody ends up administrating a community like this without being a bit of a control freak.

However, I have also grown as an individual and I've let go for a lot of what I considered worth controlling in the past. I completely changed the way I dealt with problematic individuals in Pixelation, for example, trying to have a conversation with them (usually behind the scenes) to address their grievances.

Likewise, there was a perspective shift when all the fuss was kicked up about 'NPA' (nonpixel art) over at Pixeljoint. I could tell that this was a feedback loop from earlier Pixelation days and I could tell we should break out of that and for the most part we did.

The way we did is by not prescribing what pixel art ought to be, just to recommend what people bring to Pixelation because that's what we could help with. This might seem like a fine distinction, but it really wasn't and isn't. It's the reason low-spec was also introduced.

The complicated issue, and the one Dex is correct in underlining occurs when I started getting into the cluster stuff, because although I was and am very clear that it all is just personal thoughts on the matter, the way I understand that stuff still has an air of 'this is what pixels long to be'. So to be extra clear for all intents and purposes, it is philosophically suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt, that 'pixels long to be' anything.

People are free to do oekaki, to have banding in their art, to have their dithering touch their aa, to do pictures with 3000 colors that took 500 workhours to finish. I am fine with all of that. We might not have something valuable to say about all of these things in Pixelation, but that shouldn't stop them. If anyone patronises them in Pixelation about it, let me know and I will make certain that it never happens again. It's one thing to be told 'I can't help with this' and another to be told 'you shouldn't do this because I can't help with this'.

So, what we discuss in this thread, it's best to take it as a vice. Those that have the kink will get what we're discussing and it will inform their art when they try it and they will not be able to help themselves but think of the repercussions of the suggestion of no single pixels. Others will look at this, go 'whuh?' and never give it a second thought, and that's absolutely fine.

Because we can still talk about what's going on in their art if there's single pixels, aa and dithering. We have the tools, we built them systematically for years. There's no reason to push people to adopt a kink they don't enjoy already.

So it's very different from oekaki (where the discussion usually stops at 'you should control more') or supersmooth demoscene artwork (where the discussion usually stops at 'wow! I can't believe it's made with pixels!!!!!!!!') because we can still talk about single pixels, see?

There's a reason I haven't even included this recent thread in the Ramblethread proper. It's because it's a vice, honestly. It might be an important thing in my mind (as all vices are to those who have them) but it's not necessary for good pixel art. At least I don't think so. So it's prescriptive, but only prescriptive to those that come to this thread and their brain goes "...of course." It might not go that way immediately, but you'd have to be game at some point anyway to entertain something so ludicrous as taking off all the single pixels from a medium built out of the love of the single pixel.

Rest assured, I'm fully aware of how crazy some of this sounds and I'm not going to enforce it in any official way. In fact, I'd say that I'm on the way out of Pixelation administration anyway. It's been too long and I feel I'm holding the place back. I'm ready to be the crazy uncle, mumbling about clusters in his sleep by the fireplace.

[API-Beast]

This thread makes me realize that how much obsessive anti aliasing can hurt the piece since it forces you to pack a lot colors into a extremely small area.