Ramblethread! A brainstorm approaches!

[Helm]

On the reinvigorated interest in retro art, pixel art and the demoscene

Demoscene art broadly falls within the 'Realist' end of the triangle suggested in the beginning of this article. As such its goal has always been primarily to convey lushly rendered images in spite of the limitations of the digital imagery format. Though there were demoscene artists that were adept low-color/restricted mode pixel artists, the aesthetic strength of pixels and precisely controlled pixel clusters is downplayed, especially in the Amiga demoscene, in favor of the illusion of unrestricted illustration. Colors were mixed to offer the illusion that there were no discernible color limit, antialias smoothened out the perceived resolution to the closest possible approximation of infinite, so on. Sometimes sharp single pixel or pixel line specular are a feature of this work but I've grown to question whether they were intended as any sort of 'pixel art' statement.

Lately there's been a resurgence of interest in some forms of pixel art, mostly the low-color fake 8-bitesque variety where the pixels are chunky, bright and visible. We often stumble across articles from outside sources mentioning the beauty of pixel art and the examples cited are often blocky chunky retro pieces of that sort (or isometric Eboy stuff). Why isn't there a similar interest then in the demoscene type of pixel art, though a lot of it is striking to look at and certainly its made of pixels?

I offer two (well, three) explanations for this. On one hand, demoscene art achieves its goal a bit too much, therefore it doesn't look like pixel art exactly. It looks like peculiarly sharp cgi/photoshop work in small resolutions. Its graces are apparent to those that zoom and Those that Zoom are an esoteric bunch in any climate. Most people use blurry browsers now, keep this in mind. Some people love this 'quasi-cg' look but it seems they mostly come from an 80's computer scene background to begin with. In this way demoscene artwork is insular, it's from the scene and for the scene. I doubt there will ever be again a wider interest in that type of realistic pixel artwork, regardless of how well its made, technically. At most art appreciators will wonder from afar.

I do not think the lack of interest is due to how much of that artwork was straight copies from photographs or Frazetta illustrations as I don't think the wide public minds this. After all we're the result of a very self-voracious pop culture where anything worth looking at is worth looking at as if it's new again at some point.

On the other hand I think demoscene-type artwork isn't enjoying a similar resurgence in interest as the retro-art type of work because it isn't closely related to indie gaming. On a very significant level it seems that the interest in retro pixel art is tied very directly to feelings of nostalgia over outmodded console and other gaming systems on the part of those enthusiasts. The demoscene *is* related to gaming but in a tangential manner and going from personal experience, a frustrating one as well. Does anyone remember watching a demo by some group and struggling to find out what button to press to 'start the game'? Surely all this awesome-looking art meant you were watching the intro to some game, right? I think that sort of warm-cold disappointment when one realizes this is after all just a showcase of skill on a computer used for interactive pursuits colors the memory of scene artwork by insiders and outsiders the same. It's also useful to remember that the results of when demoscenesters made games were usually disappointing to abysmal (though exceptions exist).

Actually I think there's a third reason for this disparity of interest in the facets of pixel artistry, and one that possibly puts the middle-ground between 'retro style' pixel art and 'demoscene' style realistic pixel art in a possible future advantage.

As outsiders become re-accustomed with the newer strands of retro-looking pixel art they will unconsciously begin to prize the main attraction, beneath the chunky nostalgic sprites and the bright colors. I believe that is the sense of 'controlled medium gives controlled results' that the grind-based essence of pixel art allows for is the ultimate charm of it. I believe pixel artists might be consciously unaware of it but that's the sort of result their work strives for naturally, the workflow leads to precise pixel clusters and maximization of effect through controlled movement.

Demoscene artwork obfuscates its pixel-art nature too much for control to show for the beginner appreciator of the form. Sometimes it's so obscured that even experienced artists such as us cannot tell if something is controlled until we zoom in. However modern pixel art by modern artists that are influenced and aware of 'new-school' techniques manage to combine both the vitality and sharpness of retro-style pixel art and the fluidity and realism of demoscene art, oftentimes in the same piece. I believe that's a gateway for the increased sophistication of the interest of the curious outsiders to the medium. Through this 'middle stage' which is both game-arty and art-arty, where new-school pixel techniques developed for crisp monitors are well-established and endorsed that a wider public can come to appreciate the history of the medium.

If the artist reader is interested in pursuing this end I suggest to them to:

1. Avoid overblurry 'demoscene' style gradient-based soft render artwork that obfuscates the pixel art aspect of pixel art too much. The "OMG I can't believe this is pixelled!" effect that was so prized for those whose craftsman mentality was based around wooing insiders and winning competitions is not at this time pertinent.

2. Learn your newschool techniques to the point where even your most lushly rendered pixel art clearly communicates 'I am made out of pixels, placed by hand' even at 1x zoom where a casual outsider can see the control and feel its impact.

3. On the other hand avoid oversimplified 'retro' art that downplays the importance of control over the basic nostalgia trip.

4. Finally and most importantly (though I guess this cannot be communicated as a simple suggestion) pixel artwork should be about something else than itself, being, pixel artwork. To get someone interested in pixels I believe we have to get them interested in what we're doing with pixels first. A lot of newschool art fails at this spectacularily, being aesthetically little more than variable excercises in how to anti-alias correctly and so on. Retro-art overcomes this hurdle because it is usually, *in service of a game*. If you don't want to make game pixel art, then make _____  pixel art, where the gap fill in with your heart's desire. Don't just make 'I need to win this demoscene compo' pixel art.

This is not a manifesto. I do not even plan to follow those guidelines to the letter as I have other interests other than creating art that operates as a gateway to the history of the medium for outsiders (though it is certainly one of my considerations) but to those that often lament that outside interest, who would like for their artwork to be accepted and for the wider public to be more aware of what pixel art as we see it is, then you can put your effort where your mouth is thusly. The 'middle ground' of pixel art requires intellectual honesty, make pixel art in a controlled fashion and have the end result speak of control and those idiosyncratic outsiders that find restriction/control schemata attractive will realize that pixel art is not just about 8bit nostalgia.

[Gil]

The big problem is that indie gamers create abyssmal "retro art". When you tell them to fix up issues such as bland color palettes, banding and sloppy linework, you get the following answer:

"It's supposed to look like that because it's 8bit"

The artists are often looking for a quick gratification. I create this bad art, but it looks "retro", so I don't have to fix it.

[Helm]

Let them. We're talking about what we'd do if we wanted to promote understanding of the medium. I sincerily believe that even 8-bit art with new-school sensibility and pixel knowledge will eventually be more well liked by the public than generic looking fake 'retro art'.

[Lizzrd]

Bad pixelart just tends to look bad for everyone, not just pixel artists.

[Gil]

That is decisively not true Lizzrd. I can show you multiple examples of pixel art that DID get global attention and none of them are above average quality. They are revered for their "retro" look.

Helm: true enough I guess. The problem would be to gather enough momentum to push pixel art as a medium into the open. The question is of course whether this is needed. It's not that important. I don't see an increase or decline in the number of pixel art fans for the last 5 or 10 years, so we really don't need to worry about the art dying out.

People think that the current indie gaming scene is rediscovering the pixel art aesthetic, but that's not true. When I was in art college 6 years ago, there was an equally big movement centered around the likes of Eboy.

Luckily for us there are quite a few excellent games out there that do get a fair bit of attention. Spelunky, Owlboy, Konjak's stuff, Wayforward's stuff. Unsurprisingly, most of the better pixel artists can trace their roots to Pixelation.

[Darien]

What are some of those games, Gil?  Can you give some examples?

[Stab]

most of the better pixel artists can trace their roots to Pixelation.

I like this statement and find it to be true. Also, it is important to note that most of the better pixel artists do things other than pixel art. Such as draw. Lots.

[Jad]

The big problem is that indie gamers create abyssmal "retro art". When you tell them to fix up issues such as bland color palettes, banding and sloppy linework, you get the following answer:

"It's supposed to look like that because it's 8bit"

The artists are often looking for a quick gratification. I create this bad art, but it looks "retro", so I don't have to fix it.

I often find that the answer is 'I can't really draw, but I want graphics for my game. I found this aesthetic to be a way for me to make art that actually looks like something'

or something like that.

[CrazyMLC]

I've talked with so many people just don't see the point of having good quality pixel art when games like Crysis or Doom 3 look so much better.
They thought that if you're just going to make pixel art you should make it 'retro', a.k.a. using small amounts of colors badly. 

[Lizzrd]

Yeah well they are stupid cause it's not r eally graphics that count, it's the fun you hvae playing it and how the controls are.
even more realistic games aren't possible before we get "better" controls to pc.

[Helm]

But about the idea that there could be a middle point between pixel art that hides its pixel artiness (demoscene) and the low-barrier entry of retro pixel art (it's made of a few squares!), where the appeal is in the crisp, controlled and sharp form and shape, how about it? Something that is neither retro-nostalgia "IT LOOKS LIKE AN ATARI!!!" or the other end of "OMG IT LOOKS LIKE OILPAINTING"? Any thoughts? In my ideal space it's somewhere below Fool's level of rendering and somewhere above stuff like this.

Basically I think there needs to be a reduction of dependence on anti-alias, especially where it starts veering towards vector-like art. Dithering is a good idea where it can sort of be visible at 1x zoom, single pixel speculars are good but single pixel noise is bad. And on the other hand the subject matter should be expansive and brave, not just 8-bit looking character/game art. Of course, banding is the devil because banding == carelessness, lack of control and forethought on how clusters work together.

[Darien]

I think there could be a lot more interesting stuff done with low resolution work, like superbrothers--I wouldn't say their stuff isn't retro at all, but I would also say it is also anti-retro

[Helm]

I love superbrothers but how is it anti-retro? Not saying it isn't specifically, I'd just like to hear your argumentation.

EDIT: as an addendum to my position on my post before this, also another way to create 'gateway' pixel art that emphasizes sweet sweet control and beautiful pixel clusters without making it look like demoscene oilsoup is - besides working slightly sharper/with less aa than some of us are used to - is to enforce a mandatory x2 zoom on some pieces. In pixelation we have the zoom script and the sharpixel css, but not every place on the internet does. I think people being able to see the pixels at at least x2 zoom would get them to appreciate them more than they would if they were 'doing their job' and faking infinite resolution/oil painting pastiche, sometimes.

Like this for example, is the opposite of what I'm talking about. Looks good at 1x zoom because it's so heavily photoreferenced/aa-smoothed but looking at it at 2x zoom makes it look worse, the pattern dithers break the planes and make the whole thing look flat, there's banding in the aa and so on. No offence to dawnbringer of course and I'm sure a lot of dedicated pixel artists can see the artistry... but besides wowing outsiders about how 'holy shit, is this even pixel art, this looks like a photo!!!!!'... what is it doing at 2x zoom that makes it good pixel art?

What I think I'm getting at is that in order to get more people to appreciate the medium, the medium itself should not only welcome scrutiny but give positive returns for the attentive. At 2x zoom a lot is apparent about technique that isn't at 1x zoom. At 5x zoom the pixels are so large there's not a lot of technique left to talk about (retro pixel art) but where is the median?

[Darien]

Well to answer that I think I'll have to try to explain what I perceive to be retro pixel art.  There are a lot of examples that would work just as well but I'll pick a screenshot from snake's Owlboy:



To me, this is about as retro as it gets.  Not timeline-wise, as we have pixel art that references C64 or Atari or art, but in terms of intention or goal.  Owlboy seems to be trying to elicit from the viewer the reaction of "hey this looks just like SNES!" or perhaps more accurately "this looks just like SNES but better!"  And most pixel artists out there, it seems to me, are going for the same reaction, even if they aren't actually making a game and are just making sprites or mock ups.  That "I wish I could play this" reaction, which seems to aim specifically as though these pieces of pixel art were something you could have popped into your SNES at one point.  These styles deliberately appeal to the viewers (and the artist's) nostalgia, which is, I think, incredible indulgent.  Which is fine; I can't deny that I look for a download button when I see a screenshot like this.  I don't know snake's story but I imagine it goes like this: he got into pixel art because he wanted to make games like he used to play when he was young; over the years he got incredibly good, even better than most of the old 'masters' and still makes art like he wanted to see in a game when he was young.  That may not actually be snake's story, but it's a common enough story regardless (it would be my own story if I had ever gotten good at pixel art).  Most of the old talented pixelation members are still making big-headed sprites or muscly warriors or the like as though there is nothing else to do with the medium, and that's what most people want to see.  To me, this sort of continuing progress in technical skill is, while impressive on one level, ultimately boring, because most of the art is still focused around the sensibilities of games from the 90s.  In my view not much better than the 'bad pixel art' stuff Gil was talking about that focuses completely on the nostalgia trip.



(from DESIGN REBOOT HD)

But superbrothers... it is retro, to an extent, and I wont say it isn't indulgent at all--I think you'd be hard pressed to find any art that isn't indulgent in one way or another--but it seems much more self conscious.  The left screen looks a lot like a videogame, and superficially looks like it is all retro--it's lo-fi, you can see all the pixels in a relatively simple style, and it is some sort of warrior we like we could see in an old-school RPG.  But I can't imagine that existing when I was a kid.  It's anti-retro because it doesn't appeal to nostalgia like Owlboy does because nobody made games that looked like that back then--and I don't think many people would have liked to see it back then either--most people wanted a prettier Zelda or a more badass Contra or an upgraded game of choice.  It eschews old game sensibilities like the bright colors or big muscles and heads or dramatic poses.  I guess I see it as anti-retro because the big pixels make me want to say "just like old games" but when I look at how it's presented I just think, no, games weren't like that at all.  



I had a lot more trouble articulating that than I thought I would... I'll continue to think on the subject.

[Jad]

Most of the old talented pixelation members are still making big-headed sprites or muscly warriors or the like as though there is nothing else to do with the medium (...) . 

I .. I, really, no, or ... ? Is that really so? Muscly warriors? Isn't that just a sorta bad example. You could've said 'game-y art' and I'd have agreed with you.

To me, this sort of continuing progress in technical skill is (...) ultimately boring, because most of the art is still focused around the sensibilities of games from the 90s. 

Haha, yeah. Games from the 90s (or rather, nerd pop media from the 80s/90s, esp. japanese) is a never-ending source of goodness and fun for me. Whenever I think I've lost interest in anime, something from 85-95 pops up and makes me love the shit of it - whenever I think I've lost interest in games, I find a game from the 90s that makes me all giddy. For me this is not about nostalgia, it's about the whole culture - something that existed before has died down now, but for me there is no reason to keep it so. The games and media from back then feels so incredibly fresh and intersting to me, for me it's just a matter of creating media that melds with my own interests and sensibilities. I want to kick off from there, but evolve it and release the potential that lied in the game and media of that style. I'm glad others are doing the same! But yes, of course, it does get boring when noone feels like surpassing their old masters, but just copy them over and over. But still, people are getting better and better at pixel art. If these people didn't exist, the art form and skill would be completely DEAD now. The oh-so-omnipresent graphics of seiken densetsu 3 wouldn't be something boring that everyone has learned to copy - it'd be a relic of time, and a proof of craftsmanship that NOONE possesses (sp?) anymore. I'm so happy it isn't so. ; u ; (way more words than I'd have needed to get my point across, but I'm at work and don't have time to write short things)

In my view not much better than the 'bad pixel art' stuff Gil was talking about that focuses completely on the nostalgia trip.

Except that Gil was talking about horrible art that believes that being retro is an excuse for being so.

You're talking about excellent art, that you feel maybe should excuse itself for being too retro. (as in, copying something existing instead of going its own way with the aesthetic, I think...?)

I think the latter is much much better.

[alspal]

NOONE possesses (sp?)

Almost, it's "NO ONE possesses".

[Reo]

On the topic of snake and owlboy:

interview with snake where he talks about why owlboy looks like it does and also about pixelart in games, surprisingly fitting for this topic.

http://www.gamereactor.no/grtv/?id=7181&l=GDC

[Darien]

Most of the old talented pixelation members are still making big-headed sprites or muscly warriors or the like as though there is nothing else to do with the medium (...) . 

I .. I, really, no, or ... ? Is that really so? Muscly warriors? Isn't that just a sorta bad example. You could've said 'game-y art' and I'd have agreed with you.

I originally wrote "muscly demons" but I didn't want to take such a direct knock at st0ven.  But I don't think "game-y art" really approximates what I mean... superbrothers can be very game-y (and remember my intention with that post was to explain why superbrothers was anti-retro, not just to say why I've been bored by recent retro pixel art).  I think "game-y art that still clings to 80s or 90s sensibilities" is closer to what I'm talking about.  And that's what stops superbrothers from being strictly retro for me--the way it, I think, very deliberately doesn't play into those old school sensibilities.

[Helm]

Darien thanks for your explanation. I do not personally agree that Snake's art for Owlboy looks 'like Snes art'. For me stuff like this looks like SNES art. RPG portraits, little jrpg characters, sideways views for brawlers or fight scenes with all the mauve and purple tints and over-rendered shapes. Snake's shading style in Owlboy is decidedly new-school, very sharp, not that much anti-alias. His color choice is not oldschool because it's quite austere. I see snake's art coming from a capcom appreciation background but as far as owlboy goes  I think it goes beyond that quite a bit. I do not look at Owlboy art and think 'this is like what I could have on my Mega Drive (I didn't have a snes)!' at all. What I mentioned plus that there are no visible grids and tile boundries is enough to put it decidedly outside the retropixelart context. Put it next to Cave Story and you'll see my point.

About superbrothers, whereas people would have liked art like that in the past is not the point. That you could sorta find art like that (I agree that it's not the same but it hearkens back to some paradigms) on the c64 and especially the Atari with its quadriplewide pixels means that people will recognize the nostalgia. I do think superbrothers art starts at least at a nostalgic base but then yes, according to what project they're working on, it might move against those nostalgic preconceptions. I cannot say for anything in specific because I haven't played their game yet.

So although I found your points very interesting, I cannot say we've come to an understanding.

[Darien]

Perhaps to say Owlboy looks like SNES and superbrothers doesn't look like old games was a little simplistic... of course there are many ways that Owlboy is new school just as there is a lot of new pixel art that doesn't look like it was lifted off a Mega Drive or SNES.  I guess when I said Owlboy "looks like SNES" I meant mostly in terms of attitude toward itself and where it comes from, rather than technical rendering--perhaps that it is very comfortable with itself in continuing and expanding upon the tradition of old 2D games and game art.  Superbrothers on the other hand seems to me to have a different attitude... one that is a little less loving toward its roots, maybe.  It doesn't look like an old game to me because I never saw that attitude before.

So although I found your points very interesting, I cannot say we've come to an understanding.

That's okay, I haven't thought about these subjects much before and so I am still trying to come to an understanding with myself.

[zeid]

Just found this thread; I've always wanted to discuss and explore in a more logical and technical fashion the pixel art unique matter helm and others have been discussing at the start.

I also wanted to insert a little opinion and say, the nostalgia associated with pixel art serves to hold it back as a serious medium in the eyes of many.  So I'm very glad that Snake said what he did in that interview, and that a game like that is coming out.

While Owlboy's art might not intentionally be trying to bring a nostalgic value to the game, it is inherent.  Perhaps this is a limitation to some extent of pixel art in games and at particularly low scale.  Good pixel art at smaller and smaller sizes should have a stronger symbolic expression.  going back to your earlier post, and elaborating on some of what you have said, I think it would be safe to say creating pixel art at lower and lower sizes resorts in the need for less realism and more symbolism (symbolism is of course tied closely with abstraction in the terminology I am using).  The cost of not doing so is a reduction to readability.  Too much abstraction and your image may result in an underrendered look.  Too little abstraction and you get 'fuzzy' images.

The last thing to note about this is it is acceptable in traditional media to symbolize/abstract despite the scale of the image so long as it is done tastefully;  This means of course that you can have larger scale images with higher symbolic value/more abstracted features while it still remains acceptably high quality art.  On the other hand you cannot have lower scales without the symbolism, or you aren't using the pixel medium to it's fullest and are just creating down scaled images with the same loss of precision of having resized other art mediums.

[Helm]

yes on that, zeid, I think that given the game-related history of pixel art, even the fact that in small resolutions an 'object' is defined by being separate from a 'background' (sprites and bobs and tiles and backgrounds and so on) gives in an inherent relation to symbolism, whereas if you make an oil painting using a huge brush and three colors that doesn't mean that this brush-stroke is an 'object' at all, a dualist entity that is on top of the canvas background. It could mean that if the artist was going for it but I'm just saying in pixel art when you go smaller and smaller it seems you're inviting symbolism-via-abstraction. Abstraction is fine art is resolutely not symbolist. A Mondrian painting does not necessarily have objects in it that 'stand in for other objects'.

[zeid]

I'm planning on writting a piece on pixel art of the sub-pixel level (representing image data less then 1 pixel in size) and super-pixel level (representing image data more then 1 pixel in size).  I know a lot of people don't make this distinction but I group AA, sub-pixel animation and similar use of pixel clusters in the same capacity all into the group of "subpixel representation".

I've been considering dithering dependant on, context to fall into either super-pixel, or sub-pixel.
Right now I regard it as a super-pixel technique when it's use in regards to colour conservation;  i.e The use of larger then pixel sized patterns to create the impression of a new colour on the pixel level.
However I place dithering into the sub-pixel category when it comes to creating texture;  i.e. The use of the pixels in relation to one another to create the impression of obscured detail relating to a texture of sorts.

I've been meaning to discuss something like this for a long time (years), this seems like the thread to bring it up and to help develop my thoughts on the matter further with the influence and insight of other artists.

What are people's thoughts on this concept?  Agree dissagree, classify things differently?

[Helm]

On Banding Solutions

The pixel artist that works with more than two colors will undoubtedly run into banding problems. Here are some useful approaches for clearing out banding in one's pixel clusters.



First let's talk about the problems a little.

A is the case where a mostly regular cluster has a few irregular edges. The instinct of many pixel artists is to 'follow the shape' with anti-alias so it's 'shaded' while still retaining its irregular identity. This impulse isn't the best solution. Squares are strong in pixel art. Pixel art does perfect lines better than any other medium we know of. Absolutely crisp and straight, 90 degree angles in pixel art as a strength. The good pixel artist subconsciously is drawn towards the platonic solids they can present in their art, so to 'fill in the form' is a possible solution. However we see in the example above that the artist has exacerbated the problem by introducing banding. Instead of a perfect shape he's left with a very visually striking reminder of the shape's imperfection. The blemishes at the edges have been made doubly apparent because banding draws attention to the grid.

Let's talk about B last.

C is slightly more complicated combination of clusters where the artist is both trying to 'shade' the irregular contours of the shape and at the same time taper its end off into its own cluster to suggest a gradation or fade. To use contour anti-alias (single or double-pixel rows going around regular angles) that introduce a new cluster is a common reflex in pixel artists, however by introducing banding here what is instead achieved is a very strange visual illusion where the pixel cluster is blurred and doubled. I can't explain this any better, anyone who has spotted the perils of banding can see what I'm talking about.

B is a composite problem, where there's both a 90 degree boxy shape conveyed but there's also sloping and a free-form taper edge. Banding here has made every problem that much worse.

I want the reader to stop a while here and consider how they'd solve these problems. Go in your pixel art program and make do as best you can, commit to an approach on how to deal with the banding issues apparent in these examples. Then come back and read the rest and see how your choices parallel mine.











Here's a set of solutions.

On A you'll see I opted to double the anti-alias vertically. This effectively makes the antialias from contour anti-alias to separate pixel clusters on its own. This might seem counterintuitive at first but it looks much better than the banding. It suits however only the situations where the form can be elongated in either axis like that. Generally keep in mind:



When pixels of close shades touch in a systematic manner, there'll be banding. Although it seems counterintuitive, using clusters that are not one-pixel thin, less colors and therefore stronger segregation works better than banding because it suggests there's an orderly system of stacking that isn't dependent on the pixel grid, but on the number of available colors. If you have to choose between the two in pixel art, I posit that it's better to draw attention to a small color palette than it is to draw attention to the grid.

On C my solution here is to remove most of the contour anti-alias that would connect it to the separate cluster. Again this feels counter-intuitive but art with a grid has special considerations to keep in mind.




Best to deemphasize the introduction of a new color cluster through anti-alias *at the connection* between the two, otherwise between trying to anti-alias one form into another and introducing the new shape gradually, banding will occur.

On B my solution is as expected, composite. I identified the perfect angle on the right slope of the form and gave it one-point anti-alias. I made the irregular nooks sharp and readable and I suggested a slight curvature at the bottom of the identified square with a single pixel's worth of anti-alias. I broke up the line on the bottom of the form with the anti-alias because I judged any other solution for that configuration of pixels would lead to more banding. That last bit is effectively, sub-pixelling.

Here's a different set of solutions:



As you can see here anti-alias is mostly removed. This is a different approach but a valid nonetheless. On A note that the 'platonic square' that the cluster desires to be is again empathized and no banding is occurring. On C not how the two clusters (and no aa, at this point) interlock as if they're shaking hands: that's an elegant solution to the edge between clusters issue. In your paint program, add a pixel on the top or bottom of the 'handshake' to see what I mean about it. On B the minimal AA brings out the cluster shape loud and clear, but it also brings attention to the grid. It's a cost/benefit choice.

[7321551]

I think I avoid banding most of the time... Is this right?


I'm not sure about the doubled AA in the first A-solution. Do you know of any examples of that method?

[Helm]

Your AA seems solid to me.

Bading gets worse, more like this:



As to the A example, you can see it in a lot of pixel art, especially with metallic surfaces but nothing specific comes to mind.

[7321551]

Thanks.
I noticed that the examples expanded/contracted a bit in the two different solutions, which gave me this idea -

Contriving size of subject to remove AA & avoid banding:

[Helm]

Yes, thank you, that is a useful chart.

Philosophically I think even the sharpest-minded pixel artist should use at least a few bits of sparse one-point anti-alias in a piece just to show that manual antialias is in his artistic lexicon, you know?

[ptoing]

I just realised something. We often completely disregard the circumstances old gameart was made for. Older systems such as the C64 and all lowres arcade machines (even recent games still coming out) run with solid scanlines, not interlace or progressive scan. Only one field of scanlines is active at any point in time and it never changes which one it is. Thus you get very solid and visible sectioning of the pixels. Either horizontally or vertically, depending how the monitor is rotated (lots of vertical games in the arcades)

The thing is that scanlines slice through the grid and thus they make it more obvious and at the same time also kinda hide it.

Look at this:


In the versions with scanlines I would say the evil banding version looks best, the scanlines effectively hide the stepping between which shows where the grid meets.
I would also say that this goes for stuff like AA, as in it is needed less, because stepping is hidden to a degree.

Just something to keep in mind for things like CCs and such.

[Rydin]

Here was my try at solving the problems before scrolling down.

[Helm]

Ptoing, very illuminating post! I agree that if one is making pixel art for a non-crisp monitor then banding is less of an issue. But what I'm writing has to do 100% with pixel appreciation in sharp monitors. I don't think it's viable for someone to say 'I'll put banding in my crisp art even if it's never going to run with scanlines just because Capcom did it in the 90s'.

[ptoing]

Yes of course, I totally agree. I reckon there are people who like old arcade games and the capcom style and whatnot who probably do not think too much about how the scanlines influenced the making of stuff and just ape the style regardless.

[Helm]

Rydin, consider these changes

[Rydin]

Those 90 degree edges work a lot better.

[Helm]

Not all pixel clusters are equal. Some are ugly and prone to banding, others are beautiful and fit together like lego blocks.



Most bigger shapes can be analyzed in a combination of beautiful shapes that lead to the minimum of banding.

[skamocore]

I've noticed Vierbit uses this one a lot...and I like it.



Also, you forgot the Tetris L block

[Helm]

Actually the L tetromino is one of the ugliest small clusters that come to mind.

[ptoing]

I would say that is a bit of a blanket statement right there. If you do something mechanical with a lot of corners and highlights on corners something L shaped would be just fine in most cases. Same goes for little L shaped mechanical vent details and whatnot.

[Helm]

Okay. L is good for vents. 

[ptoing]

I see where you are coming from, it probably is not some cluster you can use all over the joint, but neither is the T one imo.

I think the notion of "here be clusters that work" is not that great, as I do not believe that there are any that always work or even mostly. It always depends on what is around them and such.

[Helm]

To add to the concept of beautiful clusters: the more beautiful a cluster the less the artist should feel they have to hide it with antialias and blending and other tricks. Therefore it follows that the fewer colors an artist has to work with, the more they should gravitate towards beautiful clusters.