Talk:Pixel art/Archive 1

Archive 1

PNG and GIF

Why is it important to mention these two image formats? The choice of these particular formats is POV. There are any number of formats that could just as well be used, such as bmp, ico, icns (mac icon format), tiff or just plain RLE indexed data. I think it is better to stay general. — David Remahl 17:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not quite POV if they're just examples. The thing is, Wikipedia rules say we should explain jargons and technical terms, and giving example is one way of doing so. If we say "losslessly", some people won't really know what we're talking about, since this is somewhat a technical term. Then, the best is we either explain what losslessly is or we give an example of it. Wikifying the term is good, but it's not enough: the explanation should be on the article, after the word is used.

Pixel art is preferably stored losslessly, what can be acquired with formats such as PNG or GIF.

This is not POV, in my view, since any other formats could be mentioned (you could add some others you know, but don't make a list), but I mentioned these two because they're the most popular ones today.

Hope I made things clear — Kieff | Talk 18:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, what do you like my recent edits? — David Remahl 18:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's currently a sentence reading "BMP is also avoided, due to its lack of image compression and poor cross-platform support." Considering that BMP is one of the more widely supported formats, and does support RLE compression (although rarely used and a different extension was recommended), this smells of political agenda. Not that it is a good format to use, but the mention seems inaccurate and unneeded.--213.185.226.15 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

raster graphics programs -> raster graphics software... it looks rather redundant to me, though

Though not as redundant as what was there before, something to the effect of "graphics programs that let you manipulate an image down to single pixels.

The conecpt of pixel art is much older than PNG. Therefore, it's not quite true that GIF and PNG are the preferred file formats. Any file format, even proprietary, can be fine. It's very common in the game industry to use proprietary GFX formats. An₉elFish (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Examples of pixel art

Since I noticed any further external links in this article are not welcome unless proposed here, I suggest to include references to pixel art that are different from the typical pixel art aesthetics or introduce specific constraints, (e.g. building up an image line by line, as in rug weaving) One example can be found here: http://www.oturn.net/rug/index.html

I don't think that'd be considered pixel art by most pixel artists. There's a sense of refinement and precision associated with pixel art ("every pixel matters"), and I just can't see this in this rug weaving technique. Images drawn with a 1px thin tool without anti-aliasing don't qualify as pixel art. I'd say that's closer to oekaki. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 11:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It does qualify as pixel art in most standards. --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 13:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Even though I agree that pixel art is usually more refined than what was shown in that Rug image, I do agree that there should be some more examples in the links section or in the page itself. Maybe a link to something like pixeldam/dome or some other isometric art page and one to a collection of very fine pixel arts like the one of Mermaid/Creators http://mermaid.c64scene.org/ or a general good pixelartwork collection.

Examples of specific pixel tools

I do not know any for the pc, but for the Amiga; Deluxe Paint could many be mentioned/linked? Actually Timanthes http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=30789 is a pixelprogram that runs on Windows but is mostly designed to also convert images for the Commodore 64. PNG output is also possible however and it is a really complete program so it could also be worth a mentioning/link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.171.252.100 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Cosmigo Promotion and Graphics Gale are programs designed specifically for the creation of pixel art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.148.119 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing info about "kits"

I've just removed the "kits" section. Reasons:

1. It is SPAM.
2. The image has POV issues.
3. The existence of kits is not relevant to the pixel art article, because assembling pre-made pieces is not pixel art, even if the pieces are (they could be anything anyway, and then fall in any other type of art, the same line of though).
4. Kits discourage artistic authenticity and creativity. It misses the point of it being art.
5. There was no factual information on the section. Theses "kits" have been around for years. Fixing this information wouldn't help, because...
6. The section wouln't bring any more depth on the subject of pixel art, at all.
7. The presence of the section will encourage spamming of several kit websites (and probably mislead new pixel artists and other people).
8. I'm an elistist pixel artist and the idea of mentioning this disturbs me. The image is horrible too. (hey, at least I'm being honest! :|)

Honestly, I'd rather see a section on dolling (using pre-made bases of characters and drawing clothes and hair over them) than this. At least dollers are artistic. Also, "kits" could be partially covered within the dolling subject (since there are websites like CandyBar that do the same thing with doll makers). ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 07:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

While I frown upon people doing edits of existing works, and paper doll 'kits' are minimally considered Pixel Art, it may still be worthy to mention. Good job removing the kit image, since it was too large and also misleading, however I would say that a link and information about kits included with the other external links is not out of the question provided the kits themselves appear to have used pixel art methods. Dolls, too, are worthy of linking, provided the differences between how they are created is pointed out. I agree that a separate doll page, including kits, would be much more appropriate. The key is methods of creation, and how close to adhering to the pixel-level methods a work is. BTW, is 'The Gunk' really an ideal piece to represent Pixel Art? I don't want to discredit it altogether: It's well detailed and large.. for people who are not pixel artists, they may not appreciate the details at 1X... This topic could be expanded to address styles since Pixel Art has matured. Namely to include Demoscene masterpieces (of which only a few are pixel art, vs indexed airbrushing), the 'Korean' pixel art movement, and retrofitting game sprites towards pixel art comics and print design, to name a few things. This is worthy of a discussion before making any major edits. ~Pep @ pixel-arts.org

They might be worth mentioning, but linking to a brand new non-notable forum with less than 50 users is just stupid. If there's a major place for the subject, it should be used instead.

About the Gunk, I think so yes. You have a point though. I'll work on a version of the picture showing and pointing out details in zoom, like dithering and etc. Also, I'm all for including styles and mentioning demoscene and the korean guys, but I'm not all that knowledgeable on these aspects so I'd rather not do it myself. Someone will eventually show up that has the insight and will then add the content. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite alot of Graphics kits can be horrible. There are have been some great kits in the past. And they are classed as Pixel Art. So a small Part on this Page should be mentioned--84.70.192.130 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"The World's Tallest Virtual Building" - Co-operative Pixel Project

http://www.mrwong.de/myhouse

One of the biggest and mabye the first co-operative pixel project around. Please add the link! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.26.19.26 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Eh, I'm not sure. The project is terminated, unlike the other ones linked that are still active. You also need to provide sources about your claims that "it may be the first". When was this started? — Kieff | Talk 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pixel art vs. oekaki

From this edit....

Agreed that this needs a citation. There is a common misconception that "all computer art is pixel art", or "anything made with MS Paint is pixel art", and upholders of pixel art standards promptly strike it down as untrue. The de facto practice for creating pixel art involves close magnification to edit pixels individually and precisely; oekakis do not rely on individual pixels but the overall piece as a whole.

For example, this was created in MS Paint but is most certainly not pixel art, but instead along the lines of oekaki. --Stratadrake 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic links removed

I removed some external links that did not at all meet criteria in WP:EL to make links by encyclopedic. Mere forums/communities are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a web directoy. These links were restored by an editor with claims that did not at all match up with what's expected from WP:EL.

This article probably needs to be merged

I'm not sure why this article is a separate article when there are already so many articles about this topic under different names. The whole digital art/software art/computer art etc. topic seems to be littered with unnecessary duplicate articles. DreamGuy 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What "different names"?

• "Computer art" - any artwork created with the help of a computer
• "Digital art" - artwork created entirely (start-to-finish) from computer media, usually in the manner of a drawing or painting
• "Oekaki" - an online drawing app, also refers to works created using it
• And "Pixel art", using close magnification to create an artwork one pixel at a time

To me, the only confusion is "computer art" vs. "digital art" as the former includes the latter (but not vice versa), but the others have pretty significant differences between them. --Stratadrake 11:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for external links

Pixelation / wayofthepixel - Central hub for pixel artists on the internet, it is probably the best resource for information on the subject.

Pixeljoint - Pixel art galleries. For people interested in seeing some (or a lot) of what the article's about.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.13.103 (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and add them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.13.103 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both links were spammed cross-wiki. Forums and blogs are not really relevant. By the way, the "best" source is pretty POV. EdBever (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Blogs"? None of the links are to a blog, Pixeljoint hosts galleries. Surely a very large collection of pixel art is relevant to an article on pixel art? Readers might want to look at some examples after having read the article. I'm not trying to start an edit war or anything, but I'll add that one back since someone seems to have misunderstood what the link is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.148.119 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The links have been blacklisted.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Without justification? -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.17.51 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pixel art is a digital art form, the artists associated with it have always shared their art and theory on sites like Pixeljoint and Pixelation. These are digital salons. You will not find people more knowledgeable about pixel art than actual pixel artists, many of the members of these sites are also creating pixel art professionally. There are no other groups, online or offline, that have invested as much time and interest in describing this art form, or developing new techniques and theories related to it. To ignore the contributions of these sites is to ignore the most knowledgeable and organized opinions on pixel art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.16.115 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding a "Pixel Art Software" entry to the list

Matias Affolter: I assess that I think legitimately without money and that: every software listed must solve an existing issue regarding pixel art and being approximately more viable that the lowest quality software listed, as times tends to improve software it is fair enough. Regarding notability: pertinence, mindfulness, ability to talk, and means to verify saying MUST be taken into consideration when quoting it in a saying, let's remember that status define notability and that status itself is defined by quality of thoughts alone. Let's think in positivism. I am not here to discard pixel artist with algorithms nor money, I promise you. I am trying to solve serious issues regarding privacy that pixel art can solve and accessibility for undeveloped geographical area with open-source web technologies that I use OR code myself. As neutral as a rock, I try to avoid being thrown against my will by not moving from my POV which I claim to be relevant in "software", "art", and "pixel art" and as neutral as I can. The project I listed doesn't work with anything monetary, but the licence enable it to be so by being copied while citing the licences and authors. More than that, I do editing because I agree with Wikipedia's will: "convictions, ideas, and moral / physical rules", and I have personal vested interest in being neutrally in accord with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matias Affolter (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in your talk page: Pixa.pics offers no relevant unique features that aren't contained by the other software in the list, and it has orders of magnitudes less users. It simply isn't a known pixelart software. It doesn't even show up in most search engines, and there's practically no content made within it. That's what "notable" means in this case. It doens't belong here, that's why we keep deleting it. Stop adding your product to wikipedia. You have a giant bias towards it, probably because it is your creation. If it becomes notable other users will add it in the future. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content ClockworkChemist (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned it can convert any pictures into pixel art, and allows a plethora of editing tools, truly for a FOSS software available everywhere (which is very disruptive for established companies of surveillance related to big data), which is both good and bad for artists in pixel arts, it means the programmer can learn from the artwork of the artist and the artist can learn from the algorithms designed by the programmer, it process colors with a whole new algorithm of color quantization to reduce it's palette to a limited number of it with the best results even taking many seconds to process as of now, and not to mention not every features were mentioned, we could also discuss how algorithms progressively helps pixel artists finding new ways of exploration of the methods to rightly draw the right things in this legitimate art talking about the destiny of pixel art which will pass trough automation at some "disrupting event happening". What has begun can not be change, and what has begun can not be stopped, but everyone has their says and can make a change. I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content and My description fairly was verifiable trough the live version (not asking for account nor anything, just exist like wikipedia) and/or code for the deep-divers which has no bridge to serve the app, it is 1:1 code / live version. The things we need to discuss are 1) in an overall manner, the future destiny of pixel art dues to algorithms and AIs, maybe privacy but it isn't relevant. 2) Specifically to software listed do we accept "disruption/peanuts" if we truly are neutral, reliable, and notably concerned by which that really matters, there is no reason not accepting an innovation regarding (in the field of pixel art) user experience, functionalities (any innovative process), ... which is by common sense useful to anyone involved in pixel art. I don't think my entry to the list make the page worse... Thus why a systematic removal is happening, it should have led a discussion way before, being neutral is fair enough, being fair often isn't as neutral as it needs to. It's for pixel art not for money purpose. Don't you think this web interface isn't making things progress for good and rights purposes? I bet there is less viable project listed here, not mentioning any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matias Affolter (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is just a new indie editor that has less than 800 search results, all looping back to your own sites (It doesn't even show up unless you look it up with quotes in most browsers). It is also clearly a scheme related to the selling of NFT's. The features are irrelevant if the software isn't notable enough to be on the list. There are hundreds of raster graphic editors and bit map editors that aren't popular or widely used by pixel artists, and we don't include those in the english wikipedia just because they are functinal. Neither will we do that for Pixa pics. ClockworkChemist (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Scaling" section doesn't belong here

It talks about scaling algorithms that is almost never used by pixel artists as if it's something that is common in the community. Pixel art galleries and forums typically use plain Nearest neighbour exclusively since that allows others to clearly see the placement of each individual pixel, which is sort of the point of pixel art. (I tried being bold and doing it myself but I got some seemingly automated message saying it didn't seem like a constructive edit and it was instantly reverted. Can anyone else give it a try?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.148.119 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad examples of Pixel Art

To be blunt, there are much better examples of pixel art lying around. I'd like to see the art form represented by the higher quality works. Perhaps some cross-referencing with old video game art is in order as well? 108.212.129.166 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Academic" looking link?

I have looked at an article from DePaul University professor Stuart Grais's page for a while. It actually reads a whole lot like this Wiki article for the most part. I have emailed him about his authorship but have received no reply twice. Perhaps it is little better than a regular web link: http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/pixel_art.htm

I have been on a hunt for more reputable sources of information on Pixel Art, but have only found that one site so far... Senobyte (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotlight on a particular artist

We seem to have nothing on Susan Kare, who is featured in a blog post which features many hand-drawn example of early pixel art. It looks legitimate, but I had never heard of PLOS before. http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/11/22/the-sketchbook-of-susan-kare-the-artist-who-gave-computing-a-human-face/ Senobyte (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding a "Pixel Art Communities" section

I imagine that most of the people that are interested in this article are either game developers or pixel-artists in their own right, so I can see a real benefit in adding a "Pixel Art Communities" section to it: We could mention places as relevant as Pixeljoint or Lospec, that have really paved the way of modern pixel-art and that introduced the medium to a gigantic array of artists. It will also be a good opportunity to link in a legitimate way to their forums, which are excellent places for finding examples of pixelart and tutorials.

Some other communities (Besides Pixeljoint and Lospec) are the PixelArt subreddit, the Pixel Art Discord Server (With almost 12k members) and the Pixelation forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClockworkChemist (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Pixel art algorithms (quantization, smoothing, up-scaling)

Yeah but also, I wanted to say, I mean, at the same time, all theses algorithms try to add or remove data, often more easily reducing colors than re-adding some, smoothing also nearly is impossible to revert, and up scaling by AI isn't mostly more efficient than traditional scaling, which makes pixel art profile on social media difficult to understand for non-humanoid systems such as AI which tends to not having learned any compassion, vigilance, and few socially-related knowledge, thus pixel art is a messianic art we can say for psychopath, stalkers and surveillance from around the world, should we talks about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matias Affolter (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1