|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Contemporary Art (Inactive)|
- 1 PNG and GIF
- 2 Examples of pixel art
- 3 Examples of specific pixel tools
- 4 Removing info about "kits"
- 5 "The World's Tallest Virtual Building" - Co-operative Pixel Project
- 6 Pixel art vs. oekaki
- 7 Unencyclopedic links removed
- 8 This article probably needs to be merged
- 9 Suggestions for external links
- 10 The "Scaling" section doesn't belong here
- 11 Bad examples of Pixel Art
- 12 "Academic" looking link?
- 13 Spotlight on a particular artist
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.--188.8.131.52 (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.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Removing info about "kits"
I've just removed the "kits" section. Reasons:
- It is SPAM.
- The image has POV issues.
- 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).
- Kits discourage artistic authenticity and creativity. It misses the point of it being art.
- There was no factual information on the section. Theses "kits" have been around for years. Fixing this information wouldn't help, because...
- The section wouln't bring any more depth on the subject of pixel art, at all.
- The presence of the section will encourage spamming of several kit websites (and probably mislead new pixel artists and other people).
- 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--220.127.116.11 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"The World's Tallest Virtual Building" - Co-operative Pixel Project
- 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.
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)
Pixelation - 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.
- 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2008 (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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2014 (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 126.96.36.199 (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? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
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
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)