THE KEEN MINDS OF PIXELATION NEEDED

[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.