Subpixel Experiments

[Jad]

The only real benefit of real subpixelling is making letters crisper and less jaggy.



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

[sharprm]

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. In Ptoing's example, the green pixel is to simulate a pixel with the middle third black. I think instead of using bright red and blue pixels, the colors Ptoing uses is to keep the letter from looking too colorful.

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? 

[smiker]

thanks shark. i finally understood subpixeling theory....or i think so
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

[Conzeit]

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

[Rox]

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. Non-animation sub-pixel stuff, though, should refer to this RGB wizardry.

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!

[Lawrence]

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:

[Helm]

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.

[robotacon]

That's weird.
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.

[Lawrence]

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.

[Helm]

WE create the confusion because we're making shit up as we go along, which is fine, but you know... take the good with the bad. We're inventing the methodology of an art form every day in here.

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.