THE KEEN MINDS OF PIXELATION NEEDED

[Helm]

Okay, I think we need to do something. I think there's a lot of repeated errors that new people make and whereas it's absolutely important to explain them again and again in personal terms we could at least preface by linking them to older posts that deal with similar errors. For example I am in the habit of posting the AVOID BANDING post sans any further explanation unless the user I suggested this for asks for more, as it is a relatively simple thing to explain and advise against and I don't see the point of editing a new piece of artwork to remove banding every time unless I absolutely have to.

So how about, in lack of a Megatut that we should have done a few years ago but nobody had the time for, we assemble a collection of links in a thread that take care of all the popular errors in making pixel art? So you could say to someone who is new and has the usual errrors here look at these specific posts about pillowshading, banding and dither-aa clash and then ask if they have further questions. I know these posts already exist in the database and if they don't I'll take it upon me to make new ones explaining them, but what I need from you is to search your Pixelation Memory Banks (tm) for threads you though exemplified EDITS THAT EXPLAIN COMMON PIXELLING ERRORS. Posts that just couldn't have been made any plainer and which you thought at the time 'wow, that's a pretty simple and elegant way to explain the problem!'. The avoid banding santa for example deals with this just fine, I don't think it can be really improved upon as a post. Similar things to that, by any user!

Also I hope the people whose artwork was in these edits that we'll use as teaching aids do not mind. If they do they can contact us to remove them from this project.

Here are the things I'd like to see covered:

• BASIC ANATOMY
• FACIAL ANATOMY
• STRAIGHT RAMPS
• PILLOWSHADING
• SELOUT
• DITHER-AA CLASH
• BLURRY AA
• 45 DEGREE NEEDLESS AA
• BANDING
• OVERDITHERING
• VAGUE LIGHTSOURCES
• COLOR CONSERVATION
• LACK OF CONTRAST/SMALL VALUE RANGE
• TOO MUCH SATURATION
• VALUE JUMPS

and the ever-popular,

• GRASS TILE GRID ISSUES
• TOP-DOWN RPG DOLL SPRITE (I call them 'muscle babies'  )

... and whatever else you come up with that you think should need adressing!

A post that deals with one or more of these issues at the same time could fly, as long as it's very clear!

There is no time-limit in getting this done, nor is there any prize involved besides perhaps a level up in data mining, and a sense of positive contribution to this community. You will be credited of course.

Feel free to both discuss the idea, and provide links here.

[mattpk]

wow, i learnt something by reading the board!

45 degree angles DON'T have AA! WOO

[Sherman Gill]

The 45º thing is tough because people seem to either do it unnecessarily or not do it at all. If it's got a curve to it or it's not QUITE 45º then AA can be used to great effect.

[ptoing]

Well of course. Even if you have a straight 45° line AA can be justified if the contrast to the bordering colour is quite big, for softening.

[sharprm]

Tiling:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2555.msg31527#msg31527
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2555.msg31713#msg31713

Baccaman21 links:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5420.msg64518#msg64518

Adarias’ isometric wireframe example:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2932.msg40853#msg40853

Isometric, if someone doesn’t realise the angles are wrong:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5853.0

How do we link to specific replies in a topic? I can see the bacamann one does it, but how do you find out what msg#? Thanks Akira

[Akira]

Grab the link from the specific posts title. on yours it's RE: THE KEEN MINDS... and the link is http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5965.msg70060#msg70060

[Helm]

thanks, sharprm! Keep them coming, guys!

[Doppleganger]

Tiling, contrast and saturation http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4463.0

It's a longer read but it's obviously a topic that I could easily remember existing. Oh glory were the days when my monitor was so poorly calibrated.

[Helm]

That's excellent!

[ndchristie]

delete this post as necessary, sparked by 45 degree questions:


what do we call this technique of using value to alter line weight without changing width?  it's no AA...or selout.....or is it?



used a lot on shiny things with glints etc.  arms and armor mostly, like the head, shoulders, or particularly shining part of a weapon.  also for cars pr anything else that's high shine

[Sherman Gill]

I'd call it subpixelling.

[ptoing]

not really subpixelling. I think there is no name for it. it's basically weight due to value.

[Indigo]

it's no AA...or selout.....or is it?

answer: all of the above


same image with filled half.  Shows how it can be used for advanced AA to hint towards curves.

[Helm]

Here is the quintessential selout thread!

Come on, do a few searches! Help the place out!

[Lawrence]

Indigo is right, it is just anti-aliasing. This is what happens when people blindly recite arbitrary rules (such is the anti-45-aa) without holistic consideration, it leads to people being confused like this. What also leads to confusion is the mixing up of definitions; so called "sub-pixelling" is antialiasing. And so is "weight due to value". They're all one and the same. If ever a special reference topic was needed, it would be one which cleared up people's misconceptions of those kind of terms.

[Helm]

I'd more precisely state it's not usually wise or needed to *buffer* a 45 degree line. But AAing is a bigger field yes, you can smooth things on the subpixel like this and in other ways.

[tocky]

probably the best musclebaby thread:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5509.msg65533#msg65533

[Helm]

Excellent. Can somebody find something that deals with straight ramps? it's a more tricky one.

[Feron]

hows this:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=3994.msg50679#msg50679

[ptoing]

Indigo is right, it is just anti-aliasing. This is what happens when people blindly recite arbitrary rules (such is the anti-45-aa) without holistic consideration, it leads to people being confused like this. What also leads to confusion is the mixing up of definitions; so called "sub-pixelling" is antialiasing. And so is "weight due to value". They're all one and the same. If ever a special reference topic was needed, it would be one which cleared up people's misconceptions of those kind of terms.

I agree somewhat. Tho in the example Adarias posted it is not AA imo. as it does not smooth a transition. Making one side black made it AA.

[Ben2theEdge]

Indigo is right, it is just anti-aliasing. This is what happens when people blindly recite arbitrary rules (such is the anti-45-aa) without holistic consideration, it leads to people being confused like this. What also leads to confusion is the mixing up of definitions; so called "sub-pixelling" is antialiasing. And so is "weight due to value". They're all one and the same. If ever a special reference topic was needed, it would be one which cleared up people's misconceptions of those kind of terms.

I would argue that sub-pixelling and anti-aliasing are not the same thing. Anti-aliasing is sub-pixeling but not all sub-pixelling is anti-aliasing. If you were drawing a line and it had to be thinner than 1 pixel, you would do something like what Adarius posted. I've used this kind of technique to make outlines look less uniform and more organic, it's not something you'd generally see occurring in a piece accidentally just from AAing.

[Helm]

hows this:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=3994.msg50679#msg50679

Excellent, Feron! The two posts below from Adarias and philliptr, yes.

[Rosse]

Maybe interesting reads:

Micro Spriting (16x16) and Shape>Values>Color Identity:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5677.0

16 Color Palette:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4306.0

More to come

[Indigo]

Indigo is right, it is just anti-aliasing. This is what happens when people blindly recite arbitrary rules (such is the anti-45-aa) without holistic consideration, it leads to people being confused like this. What also leads to confusion is the mixing up of definitions; so called "sub-pixelling" is antialiasing. And so is "weight due to value". They're all one and the same. If ever a special reference topic was needed, it would be one which cleared up people's misconceptions of those kind of terms.

I would argue that sub-pixelling and anti-aliasing are not the same thing. Anti-aliasing is sub-pixeling but not all sub-pixelling is anti-aliasing. If you were drawing a line and it had to be thinner than 1 pixel, you would do something like what Adarius posted. I've used this kind of technique to make outlines look less uniform and more organic, it's not something you'd generally see occurring in a piece accidentally just from AAing.

My point is this; Though they may have their differences, in the end its all the same technique.  One technique applied with different intent. Thats all.

[Indigo]

Why they are all the same...

Mathematically it's all the same exact process; taking the average color of a cell - in our case, pixels

[ptoing]

Sorry, but your arguement is faulty, because then you could call half of pixelart antialiasing and subpixelling really.

You are using inverse logic here. A cat has 4 legs, but a dog is not a cat because it has 4 legs as well.

[Indigo]

Sorry, but your arguement is faulty, because then you could call half of pixelart antialiasing and subpixelling really.

I don't see a problem with that.  Technicalities of the medium.  it is what it is.  You're pretty much saying "your wrong because it doesn't sound right"

And your counter-example of a dog vs a cat is more flawed than mine (if mine is at all).  There are MANY fundamental differences between a cat and a dog, and none (mathmatically speaking) between AA, line weight, and selout (with exception to the addition of a transparent color).

This is the core of pixelart that we, as artists, often fail to recognize.


please, ptoing, explain to me how these processes are different at all, save it be for 'intent'

[ptoing]

Well, I agree that pixelart is mainly approximation, you have to think what exactly to put where because every pixel makes a difference.
Antialiasing is by definition smoothing aliasing on a display which uses pixels. There is LOADS of pixelart which does not have antialiasing. See where I am getting at?

You can not take a picture with a line and fill one side black and say, woohoo look the line is gone. Of course it is, because you changed the application of what was there.

The things you described are all based on the same prinicple, like all living beings have DNA, but they are still different.

[Indigo]

You can not take a picture with a line and fill one side black and say, woohoo look the line is gone. Of course it is, because you changed the application of what was there.

again you're only proving my point.

They are the same exact process.  The only difference is what we intend to use that process for.  In your example here, I changed the intent of that line from showing line-weight to antialiasing - thus showing that the same exact process could be used for both.

again I say, the only difference is our intent for how to use it

[ptoing]

I totally see what you mean, and I am not a big fan of looking for names for stuff.

Tho again: AA = approximation, but not all approximation = AA.

AA is a term that was clearly defined outside pixelart for a long time and I do not think we should fiddle with its definition inside the realms of pixelart. It would just make stuff even more confusing.

[AdamAtomic]

Even if the process is the same, if the intent is different, then it is a different technique.  Art techniques tend to be about the end, rather than the means.  However, I do not see much benefit in arbitrarily naming these techniques or making a big deal out of them?

[Indigo]

Even if the process is the same, if the intent is different, then it is a different technique.  Art techniques tend to be about the end, rather than the means.

thats open to opinion I believe.  As I see your point, I also see the other side to that argument.  Technique, i'd say, is the process of doing something.  And intent on what we use that process for, doesn't change the process itself.

Ptoing:
agreed.  I have always held the stance that there is only AA.  -for example, during the debates of whether selout is good or bad, I always voiced that it's only AA to a non existent color.  I'm not for adding new terms for things that already exist

EDIT:

Tho again: AA = approximation, but not all approximation = AA.

quickly I'd like to comment on this.  This couldn't be more true.  This is what makes us artists.  We are not governed by these 'rules' of AA (or others), we govern them.  We can artistically choose for or against these technicalities based on the situation.  This is what makes pixel-art "art", rather than pure "approximation"

[Helm]

Actually as far as selout being describes, effectively as AA towards black that's perfectly fine with me. Historically it's important to note that the people that invented the term didn't have this in effect mind though when they named the process (otherwise they'd just dump it under AA) they had an inention in mind. It is quite possible the capcom artists and others that actually used the technique in the first place, before Tsu and Pkmays named the thing, were informed of this effect (: as if it was antialiasing towards a very dark color) but the intent was to achieve differentiation between sprite and background, therefore clarity. Differentiation is emphatically not what AA does, most of the time. See why the term is useful? Selout is much more than an effect (which is as you said, an application of AA). It's a term that describes a specific artistic intent. And it's a very risky process that hurts art more than it helps it most of the time.

[Indigo]

thanks for clarifying that helm.. I was about to mention that myself.  That the term 'Selout' isn't a term for a technique as much as it is a term for an INTENT of a technique - As you said, some used for differentiation.

but the history of such is still a grey zone, helm.  There are just as many examples of selout from retro games used as AA as there is that to achieve differentiation, if not more.  Its hard to say what they were thinking about when they did it without being presumptuous.

As for the creators of the term, they have adopted the 'selout is AA' theory now.  Thats not to say they didn't think this when they coined the term.  But it does suggest we are all on the same page now, more or less.  (not to mention the term was coined by a young artist in learning at the time, rather than a seasoned professional)

[Helm]

I have no problem with the terms being made up by young artists, this is a young field. Whatever doubts I might have once had about making up terminology have been dispersed by the years of having seen slightly dodgy ideas being evolutionarily-wise put aside, and good ideas endorsed by the artists here. If it's a good, useful term, it'll stick around, if it's not, it'll be dissected and gutted until all that can be taken from it, has, and the husk thrown away. Pixelation has great judgement in this respect. Even selout, the thorniest of thorns has slowly being reevaluated by most practitioners.

[Indigo]

no argument there, but you missed the point.  My point was that the term evolved as the creators of it also evolved.

[Helm]

No I'm sorry, that doesn't work. You don't get to do that I mean, you get to do whatever you want and use language in whatever way you want, but don't expect other people to keep up to date with how you're using the term 'selout' this week. This is why although I do light-dependent outlines I never call them that (which is what the term has evolved to mean I think, correct me if I'm wrong). The term has too much baggage and we *have* to remember the baggage for historical reasons, we can't just disregard and recontextualize because we've grown now.

[Indigo]

I don't see why not... I mean, If a word naturally wants to change its meaning over time (which words often do throughout history) - let it do so.  Don't shackle it down at a stage when it was most flawed.  Historically we should remember the original meaning I guess.  I'll agree with you there. - but there is no point in forcing negative meaning upon it if the general consensus of it is beginning to change.  Thats counter productive.  In fact, the only ones that are "DOing" anything are the ones raving about it's original meaning in attempts to have it not change.  Truth is, things like this change on their own, without my or anyone else's will.

...though i must say the entire debate about the origins of the term is completely trivial anyway.

this thread has derailed tremendously  *sigh*

[ptoing]

gay still means happy!

[ndchristie]

and "faggot" still means "punch me in the face"

terms are contextual.  it cannot be helped.  i would love if everything meant what it was intended to mean all the time (communication is the point of language?) but it doesn't.

the only option i see is to create a pixellation-specific glossary of terms, or forget about it.

[miascugh]

To jump on the already derailed train (and to boast with the few things that stuck from my one year of studying English):

I find it peculiar how the Old English (or Old Something) gherl (young person) evolved into girl (+female) on the English side, and into the comlete opposite 'Kerl' (bloke) in German.

And to not be entirely useless, there already is a small collection that covers some of the wanted topics Feron compiled some time ago:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4912.0


*back to despairing of sheer unmanagable amounts of homework assignments

[Feron]

And to not be entirely useless, there already is a small collection that covers some of the wanted topics Feron compiled some time ago:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4912.0

Yes, and i forgot to thank you for converting all the links into titles 

perhaps the two threads could be merged one day, with an added pixel-art glossary 

(although technically a glossary thread was started, if anyone wants to revive it and add a few terms like 'selout' etc..: http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=1054.0)

[Dusty]

A lot of good advice on motion trials(and how to emphasize action in animation) on page 3
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4925.0        ... also a lot of good tiling in there and play on contrast with background/foreground

Adarias' Partisan Tactics Battles thread. I haven't gone through it, but I know there's a shitload of advice about a ton of things. Sprites, and definitely color.
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=1343.0

A thread that has a little advice on palettes and dithering. Not much textual advice, but visual edits and such:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5997.0

Some on light-sources and AA:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5886.0

[Rydin]

One of the best first posts: http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=67.0

Yet another reason to worship Helm! Heh, you spent your afternoon helping someone out Smiley Nicely done for the most part.

hehe pep, back 4 years or so, this is how pixelation was. Tsu would break out freakin' graph paper for almost anybody in his forum, 'politics' and 'elitism' be damned. Pixelopolis is a lot like back then since it's small. Enjoy the personal intimate interaction between a handful of users, enjoy it while it lasts.

And now we're making a machine to send all the new, aspiring pixellers to...just so it's less work to critique.  And still there will be threads that die with 0 replies because nobody wants to take the time to help--we'd rather show off and talk pixel theory, than actually give loving comments and crits on an understandable level. 

I'm all for efficiency, but at what expense?

[Sherman Gill]

Ugh. It doesn't mean much to me when I can't see what they're talking about .

[Terley]

I think everyone on this forum has a role to play, threads die with no replies because everyone looks to the more experienced to rain joy down on every single thread, who's to say someone in learning can't give great advice. Every little helps so if you notice someones not getting any feedback, whats stopping you? someone more clued up about theory will of course talk more directly, which not everyone will understand. But they're making the effort to give good critique, it doesn't mean they're perfect and catering for every level of artist.

This thread is a great place to go to see topics previously covered, but I doubt critiques will evolve into directed links to echoed comments, because every piece of art is different and everyone has different paths they want to take.

I see this place as the community trying to make things easier for the common pixel artist, good idea I think and some good reads.

[sharprm]

Rydin - I think the point is these links are trying to avoid you retyping the same stuff for common problems. Like why retype what the centre of mass is, how it needs to be above the base of person to avoid falling etc., if I can just link to a topic where someone else explained the same thing? That saves more time for me to post loving comments in new people's topics bitch about modern art.

Some posts on basic anatomy:

8 heads chart (Helm):

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=5633.msg67546#msg67546

Indigo tute about basics:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=560.msg6650#msg6650

Nice explanation about arm muscles (Arne):

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2428.msg66730#msg66730

[Sherman Gill]

Uff, I know it's kind of off-topic, but think it would be bad form to bump that Male base thread with a critique?
A month and 19 days old...

[Dusty]

One of the best first posts: http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=67.0

Yet another reason to worship Helm! Heh, you spent your afternoon helping someone out Smiley Nicely done for the most part.

hehe pep, back 4 years or so, this is how pixelation was. Tsu would break out freakin' graph paper for almost anybody in his forum, 'politics' and 'elitism' be damned. Pixelopolis is a lot like back then since it's small. Enjoy the personal intimate interaction between a handful of users, enjoy it while it lasts.

And now we're making a machine to send all the new, aspiring pixellers to...just so it's less work to critique.  And still there will be threads that die with 0 replies because nobody wants to take the time to help--we'd rather show off and talk pixel theory, than actually give loving comments and crits on an understandable level. 

I'm all for efficiency, but at what expense?

Hmm? I imagine there will always be a level of personal attention when it comes to critique. After all, the person spent enough time looking at the piece to pin-point problems, no? Just, instead of repeating long-winded posts everyday about the same problem that someone has everyday when they post, they can simple say "well, it seems you have a problem with blah blah... it might benefit to check out this: http://.......". It is also done quite a bit, and I personally think it helps.

[tocky]

Uff, I know it's kind of off-topic, but think it would be bad form to bump that Male base thread with a critique?
A month and 19 days old...

I say thread necromancy is okay wherever the stuff you're posting would still be useful or interesting. If the original poster is long gone, or sick of the piece, only if it'd be useful to at least a few other people.

[ndchristie]

ok, not so much a thread as hunting and chosing from a myraid.  these go back on the search "tree" for 3.5 pages, picking out ones that addressed realistic or semi-realistic STRUCTURE OF TREES.

Oh, and congrats to vierbit who was the only usable example of a tile-made tree.

[heyy13]

Geeze the colour reduction in that really killed my tree... o__O

But some of those trees are really fantastic and it's an awsome idea to have them all togeather. It's a great contrast on final products and you can see by looking at them differant people's approaches to the same (or similar) subject. I think i'll learn alot from that, thanks. : )

[brianskywalker]

three color dithering tip

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=6132.msg71714#msg71714

[AdamAtomic]

Tree additions:

by Jad

by JWW

by Alex (tileable!)