undefined | Better HN

0 pointssmallnamespace9y ago0 comments

> When art is composed out of the rendered elements directly

I wonder though, would a lot of 'pixel art' actually look better with a different filter instead?

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

derefr9y ago· 4 in thread

One increasingly-popular point of view is that console-game pixel art was intended to look like it does when sent through an analogue (e.g. composite) video cable to the average CRT television screen; and that artists relied on various "blending"-like effects that were inherent in this process, making the art assets look "off" when displayed crisply on an LCD. See http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/2982-a-link-to-the-past-ho... for examples.

smallnamespaceOP9y ago

In the context of GP's article, it's fun reading through the comments on the page:

    I actually prefer the crisp pixels
    of emulated 8 and 16 bit games,
    I have no desire to emulate
    the crappy monitors we used to use
    to play said games. - lordofultima

    I actually enjoy gigantic, crystal clear pixels.
    - rateoforange

You'd have to imagine that actual graphics artists during the 8-bit era viewed low resolution as a limitation to overcome, not a purposeful feature of their artwork.

derefr9y ago

There's an analogous situation in pop music: it's mostly mastered to sound good coming out of your average car radio or PA system or $5 earbuds. This definitely is a "purposeful feature of the artwork." It might be a regrettable feature—a constraint that the artist wishes they didn't have to work under—but the work is definitely informed all through its creation by this constraint.

Ericson23149y ago

I kinda enjoy the anachronism too, but http://d2rormqr1qwzpz.cloudfront.net/uploads/0/5408/30085-ff... from the article really does look great.

All this reminds me of tge performance practice of old music.

nibnib9y ago

>You'd have to imagine that actual graphics artists during the 8-bit era viewed low resolution as a limitation to overcome, not a purposeful feature of their artwork.

Well yeah, but it's a feature nonetheless. People aren't doing anything wrong by preferring sharp pixels. It's an aesthetic all to itself.

dahart9y ago

Interesting question. I think you've identified one of the main issues here: the subjective nature of what "better" means in a medium that is intentionally limiting itself.

Pixel art and voxel art are intending to evoke feelings of nostalgia but with a modern flare. It's important to the work that the art is visibly blocky. It's a completely artificial limitation, applied completely on purpose for the sake of the art.

What does it mean to start filtering today's pixel/voxel art? What would that achieve for the art? If *xel artists wanted to make it look "better" by smoothing out the blockiness, then it opens the door to asking, "why use low resolution blocks at all, if what you want is more realism?".

Personally, I'd guess realism, e.g., better filters or higher resolution or anything else that tries to smooth out the blocks, is antithetical to the goal, which is in part to specifically emphasize the blocks.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse