Talk:Pixel art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 PNG and GIF 2 Examples of pixel art 3 Removing info about "kits" 4 "The World's Tallest Virtual Building" - Co-operative Pixel Project

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)