The almost perfect pixel art tutorial

[abstauber]

...is here:

http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11299



Now please excuse me, I'm still reading


edit: I've just spotted, that this is from 2010, so I'm sorry if you already know about it.

[Monsieur OUXX]

I must say. EXCELLENT. Covers all the critical aspects.

[NickyNyce]

Very nice, always good to know this stuff, nice link

[Igor Hardy]

Cool find. Maybe I'll finally learn how to do it right.

[Ghost]

Very good indeed! Thanks for sharing!

[Bogdan]

Really awesome! I have just bookmarked it.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I've added this to the tutorials list.

[Snarky]

Speaking as a pixeling newbie, I don't really see the problem with "fat pixels". There are many times when it seems like the right way to draw something (for example some detail that sticks out and should have a shadow right underneath itself), so why avoid it on principle?

[Monsieur OUXX]

why avoid it on principle?

If it has a real purpose, do it. The tutorial just points out the cases when it's just clumsiness with the paintbrush.

[Snarky]

I read another tutorial by Helm quite recently that also warned against fat pixels, and the "problems" he highlighted looked just fine to me.

What gets me is that I can understand the reasoning and see the aesthetic effect of the other points, but not this prejudice against "fat pixels." For example, take this sprite that the CL helped me with:



(The face, and much besides, was edited and improved by Ben; I'm sure any problems are due to my crappy original.)

If you look closely, you'll see that starting with the chin and going up to the nose, it's an almost unbroken stack of "fat pixels": four 2x1 blocks right on top of each other, then a row that is part of a bigger area of color, and then two more 2x1 blocks. (You could object that the first three of these are connected diagonally to more pixels of the same color, and form part of curves, but if I understood Helm's tutorial correctly they still count as fat pixels.) And still, to me this doesn't really seem like a problem; it reads as a nose, mouth and chin, not seven horizontal strips of color. And even if it's not ideal, how else would you do it without adding to the color count, and while preserving the childlike, innocent expression?

So I'm just worried that there's something I'm not getting, because according to "the rules" this should apparently be an abomination unto God, and I think it looks rather nice.

[R4L]

If you look closely, you'll see that starting with the chin and going up to the nose, it's an almost unbroken stack of "fat pixels": four 2x1 blocks right on top of each other, then a row that is part of a bigger area of color, and then two more 2x1 blocks. (You could object that the first three of these are connected diagonally to more pixels of the same color, and form part of curves, but if I understood Helm's tutorial correctly they still count as fat pixels.) And still, to me this doesn't really seem like a problem; it reads as a nose, mouth and chin, not seven horizontal strips of color. And even if it's not ideal, how else would you do it without adding to the color count, and while preserving the childlike, innocent expression?

So I'm just worried that there's something I'm not getting, because according to "the rules" this should apparently be an abomination unto God, and I think it looks rather nice.

If it has a real purpose, do it. The tutorial just points out the cases when it's just clumsiness with the paintbrush.

He already said it.  :

[Snarky]

This is the Helm tutorial I was referring to. You can see that while he says things like "some degree of banding is unavoidable" and "the Fat Pixel, when used intentionally and intuitively creates specific effects that are very controlled and worthwhile" (and he explicitly mentions that in things with "high semiotic value," like faces, you have less freedom to move pixels around to avoid it), he does take a pretty strong stance against it, pointing out "problem areas" where it's not just "clumsiness with the paintbrush" but clearly an attempt to represent particular shapes.

Personally I think for instance the "mistakes" labeled D and E are unproblematic, and that his edited version looks worse, but since Helm is such a respected pixel artist I want to figure out whether this is a thing to look out for because it makes a real difference to the perception of a sprite, or if it's just pixel snobbery/fundamentalism (or perhaps to put it more diplomatically: something that only becomes relevant once your pixel art is already very accomplished).

[Darth Mandarb]

I think it's important to note that pixel joint are the Nazis of pixel art and they practice genocide on anything that doesn't fit their standards of what they consider pixel art.

I think the article does a decent job of showing the fundamentals but is too restrictive/technical for what I consider to be "art".  I think it should be called, "one pixel methodology" tutorial rather than "art" because with that many restrictions it ceases to be art (to my way of thinking) and becomes more a system.

I'm all about getting critiques and advice on stuff I'm working on but there's a point where you have to say to yourself, this is MY work.  If you like how something looks and somebody's telling you to change it 'cause "blah blah convention blah blah" you shouldn't change it if you think it looks right and don't like what they're suggesting.  Now don't get me wrong if something is suggested that, to my mind, helps the image then of course, I'd make a change and learn from it!  But in the end it's MY work and it must look good to ME.

So Snarky ... whether or not some people might not consider your image pixel-art if you think it looks right you should leave it as is and not worry about one person's views on what constitutes "proper pixel techniques".

Helm is an amazing artist but if I tried to be as technical as he is with his work I'm not sure I'd be having any fun.  I'm sure it's second nature to him and he does it easily but not everybody can achieve that level.  I mean I consider myself a decent enough artist but I'm not even close to his skill.

Another thing I try to remember is that probably (random number here) 99% of the people seeing the work aren't going to care about "fat" pixels and the like and won't even notice it.  They'll just say "love the graphics!!!!1!!".

[Bogdan]

...their standards of what they consider pixel art.
...  But in the end it's MY work and it must look good to ME.
... 99% of the people seeing the work aren't going to care about "fat" pixels and the like and won't even notice it.  They'll just say "love the graphics!!!!1!!".

So true! Thumbs up!

[Khris]

Endless pedantic criticism can indeed be annoying but for a tutorial I think it's best if the author draws a complete picture of what is frowned upon by "experts", especially when it's about something with as many don'ts as pixel art.

I think it's still better that way than if the author simply omitted "rules" they don't care about.

Also, many of the really good artists tend to draw huge pieces where those rules make more sense than when applied to comparably tiny lowres characters.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I think it's important to note that pixel joint are the Nazis of pixel art and they practice genocide on anything that doesn't fit their standards of what they consider pixel art.

Wow Darth, I think that's a bit extreme, don't you?  I've seen your art posted there before and aside from the general 'village idiot' comments you always get at huge criticism sites, you've received nice replies and good feedback, and for my part so have I.  I don't think your assessment is very fair and I'm not even a particular fan of pixeljoint.

That said, to address Snarky's issue with 'fat pixels', here is how I have always defined them (yes, definitions vary):

A grouping of jagged, SAME COLOR, pixels that stand out even to a casual glance at the image.

I personally don't view what you've done as a fat pixel situation; not only are you using two different colors but you're using color shading to soften the result, like around the lips.

To me and to many other artists this, is not, fat pixels.

Here's a semi-random application of fat pixels to your girl sprite:



I've gone a bit overboard with it but you can see where the shoulders have taken on a dirty, or blocky, presentation and areas that should be rounded or smoothed are now fattened, doubled, and made more jaggy.  This is the sort of thing I think of when I view an image as a fat pixel situation and something I'd definitely recommend avoiding unless it's a stylistic issue.