AuthorTopic: Double-Pixel style  (Read 9395 times)

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #10 on: June 27, 2009, 05:28:58 pm
wat [...] nodithminAA2x

It is enough just to say I completely disagree or do i have to substantiate?

I used to work a lot with stuff that looked fine at 1x but broke down into crazy colormesses when you zoomed in.  This is not because my color choices were outlandish, although I have reigned those in a bit, but because the pieces were not worked well at a pixel-level.  It's true that a lot of things that look great at 1x break down when zoomed.  Case in point - all other raster images.  However, the reason I think that the discussion of changing styles is off-base is that any piece which looks great with all the pixels showing will still look great at 1x unless you're on a CRT monitor (and who uses those nowadays?).  Generally, planning for 1x (or otherwise tiny images) means one thing : you can be more lazy.  Planning for greater zooms, on the other hand, means that you can show a piece anywhere.

Quote
what they saw up close is not what is seen at normal res.

taking this directly - if a piece has issues because it is trying to show too much in a tiny space, that's a completely different problem.  images aren't more clear at 2x because of contrast, etc. - they are more clear because they are say, 2 inches wide instead of 1.  If you had 2 inches of 1x pixels, you'd find them working just as well (although for more work) than 2 inches of 2x.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Atnas

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1074
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • very daijōbs
    • paintbread
    • paintbread
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #11 on: June 27, 2009, 06:54:42 pm
Quote
It is enough just to say I completely disagree or do i have to substantiate?
It's never enough. :3

I think that the reason to tone down AA on a 2x scale comes from the exact reasoning behind AA in the first place. AA is supposed to act as a sort of half pixel, and it accomplishes this through an intermediate tone which blends two tones. Alright, so if the half pixel was doubled in size it would theoretically be the size of a whole pixel, correct? from there, I would reason that, in order to once again hide the AA pixel and better smooth the intended shades, the AA pixel should be reduced to a state of even less opacity, or less contrast.

Quote
images aren't more clear at 2x because of contrast, etc. - they are more clear because they are say, 2 inches wide instead of 1.

Yes, exactly. The size makes up for the contrast. Bigger groups of pixels are more dominant than smaller ones. Common sense will tell you that. I really never would have even thought this was important to think over, let alone say out loud, if I hadn't seen this topic.

Taking Sokota's heads...


He even admitted to working at a higher res which enabled his contrast to drop, while what he was seeing during their creation was in fact pretty concise. At 1x I can't make out one group of pixels from the next. At 2x I can. At an even higher res, I can very clearly see it.

Quote
However, the reason I think that the discussion of changing styles is off-base is that any piece which looks great with all the pixels showing will still look great at 1x unless you're on a CRT monitor (and who uses those nowadays?).

Sure, pixel art at any zoom looks great if it's made well. That goes without saying, the closer you get to a painting the more you can admire the strokes. But that's beside the point, as Mathias' pixels are meant for 2x, and 2x only. And there are certain things which work at 1x which don't work at 2x because the building element is different. The AA, which used to take up a sub pixel area now takes up twice as much room, and should be adjusted accordingly. The dithering, which relied on a mesh of tones now looks noisy in comparison.

I believe that less potent AA and a decrease in contrast (because it is made up for by the increase in pixel size) is a style. It's a style used towards the end of tailoring 2x2 pixel building blocks for viewing while making the most out of the pixels. In other words, it's compensating for the increase in size with a decrease in other aspects of the art.

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Goodbye.
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9542.htm
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #12 on: June 28, 2009, 04:16:26 pm
. . . Is it wise to tailor your art to fit it's final presentation? (2x in this case) I dont know why you would even ask that! of course it is, dont be afraid to use your own perception to decide what techniques fit each amount of magnification.

Now if you're only trying to foster discussion...I'm glad to oblige. First of all...I have always thought that ideally we should not speak about a pixel piece's ideal presentation as 2x 3x 4x or any amount of magnification...I have always thought DPI (dots per inch...or hopefully DP..centimeter :p) would be far far more fitting...since it'd be indicative of how much emphasis we want each individual pixel to have. Obviously this is not the case because on a display finding out the pixel per inch ratio is far harder than magnification amount or resolution.

Hehe, thanks for the spirited response. Uhm, well yeah I guess I was intending to spark at least some discussion on the matter, I wanted to know the general feeling on this matter - always enlightening to consult the talent here. Don't worry, I'm a believer in doing what you feel; I'm not at all looking for approval or confirmation before I do something that would effect my pixelin' but the posts here in this thread have been enlightening.

While pixelling for my 2x project I think I've been subconsciously accounting for the doube-sized look - I always have a duplicate window zoomed to 2x, in my right monitor, as I work at normal 1x in my left, effectively allowing me to preview how things are coming along in real-time at the same presentational settings my players will see.

But now I can take what I've picked up here and apply it for my own betterment. Conceit, Scribblette, ndchristie and Atnas - thanks for taking the time, this is a productive debate.


--Finally, do not all of our favorite pixellers have their own "style"? They do. What constitutes them having their own style? Their own unique methodology - so, while creating the necessary pixels for my project my methodology will include optimizing for 2x. Call that a "style" if you like, it does alter the way I do things and will (or should) pervade every pixel, defining my methods while working.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 09:20:15 pm by Mathias »

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #13 on: June 28, 2009, 04:34:35 pm
I don't really consider optimizing part of style. Creating work optimized for 2x resolution is something more of a restriction than a style. When you work with low-contrast handhelds, you have to create your work with that in mind all the time. Same with working with small resolutions -- you have to optimize your graphics so your character sprite doesn't take up half the screen. These are the sort of things you always have to take into consideration when working in a limited manner, and while these things may have a huge outcome on how your work looks, I don't think anything stylistic results from it.

LODYblokady

  • Guest

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #14 on: June 28, 2009, 07:08:23 pm
I wonder if there are any games with 1x2 style pixels, I really like that style.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #15 on: June 28, 2009, 08:21:34 pm
I wonder if there are any games with 1x2 style pixels, I really like that style.
There are many, the restrictions that people use in wide-pixel art are the result of technical limitations of the c64.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Goodbye.
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9542.htm
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #16 on: June 28, 2009, 09:30:20 pm
I don't really consider optimizing part of style. Creating work optimized for 2x resolution is something more of a restriction than a style. When you work with low-contrast handhelds, you have to create your work with that in mind all the time. Same with working with small resolutions -- you have to optimize your graphics so your character sprite doesn't take up half the screen. These are the sort of things you always have to take into consideration when working in a limited manner, and while these things may have a huge outcome on how your work looks, I don't think anything stylistic results from it.

Good reasoning. But there are many styles that have resulted from display/hardware restrictions. In the realm of digital art, Pixel Art itself is an example, is it not? And it's possible we all define style a little differently . . .

From dictionary.com, I like this explanation: " a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work. "


All I know is that I'm going to make a conscious effort to create 2x pixel art in a manner best suited for enlarged (2x or whatever the zoom level may be) display.

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #17 on: June 28, 2009, 11:37:04 pm
Good reasoning. But there are many styles that have resulted from display/hardware restrictions. In the realm of digital art, Pixel Art itself is an example, is it not? And it's possible we all define style a little differently . . .
I never really considered pixel-art a style, though.

All I know is that I'm going to make a conscious effort to create 2x pixel art in a manner best suited for enlarged (2x or whatever the zoom level may be) display.
Sounds to me like you'll simply be compensating and adjusting to restrictions/setting. Do you consider working with a 4-color palette a style or a restriction? Sure, styles can evolve from restrictions, but I do not think they are one in the same.

Offline tocky

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 503
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • doublepostokrates
    • View Profile
    • my blog

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #18 on: June 29, 2009, 02:42:51 am
deliberately working under restriction, when you don't have to, is a stylistic decision. also, does it matter whether a thing is a style or not?

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Double-Pixel style

Reply #19 on: June 29, 2009, 02:47:02 am
does it matter whether a thing is a style or not?
Not really, but I never saw the problem with having a healthy discussion on the topic.