I don't think the shape of the character from the drawing here is translated very well to the pixel you've done of her. There's a lot more upper body to the pixel, unless she's got a fucking ginormous rack then it's definitely a little off. You have any other pixel work to share?
>>2234776 There isn't anything immediately off about this one, but selective outlining is a fickle thing. The rule of thumb I use is keeping darker outlines with the shadows and no outline towards where the light hits the most. But it's mostly a matter of preference I believe.
That reminds me a little bit of Syosa's work, with the colors at least.
this tutorial covers all of the basics. I could've made better example images and after 5 years it could probably use an update, but it gets the point across. I'd also recommend reading the Ramblethread! linked at the beginning of the guide.
>>2235086 Cure's shit is pretty cool. I haven't posted anything to Pixeljoint in a long while. Those monsters were a commission for someone's game.
>>2235083 Go lurk the Pixeljoint and Pixelation (Wayofthepixel) forums. Try to make sprites in the style of other games. Remember, the smaller your sprite, the bigger difference a single pixel will make.
>>2238133 Jpg's will compress and anti-alias pixel art. Jpgs are better suited for pictures, although you can try to use low compression you might still lose fidelity, especially if you are working on small or intricate works.
PNG, BMP, and GIF are more common formats for pixel art since it keeps every single pixel in the picture intact in exchange for the bigger file sizes, and it's easier to blow up the pixel art and keep it clean and blocky.
>>2238153 >bigger file sizes that usally only happens when you are saving photographs as a PNG or BMP, in fact if anything, you will get smaller file sizes since you are probably working with exact palettes and there is less colors to store in the file than if it had to account for aliased colours.
I definitely think you can get your idea across with way less colors, though. Shoot for a higher contrast, too.
My rule of thumb is to avoid dithering unless you really need it (such as to add texture to an article of clothing or background element) For skin and hair, using your shadow shapes to provide values will make a much cleaner sprite.
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but I pointed out an area where there's a bit of blur that needs to be fixed
Honestly I never understood the explanation behind subpixel animation. I can see it, and I can tell when it's going on, especially in those Metal Slug examples (is his actual Gutsman attempt even an example? it doesn't really compare to the MS work).
I feel like all it is really is just pushing the shading around depending on how each frame "should be shaded." But why is it called subpixel?
>>2244422 With a sprite that simple it would benefit from hand-drawn animation as opposed to something modular. Modular animation for 2D sprites should only be used if the sprite is either too large (at this point you're better off using vector graphics if it's a video game) or sprites with an obscene amount of detail (Metal Slug, pic related for example). The rotating pixels look really awful and makes the lines a lot more rough than they actually are. The teapots especially looks worse when rotated. I understand it's in there due to limitations from the developer, not being an artist/animator themselves, but it just doesn't look good. It's better than having no animation at all, but it's very rudimentary.
>>2244821 I have incredibly limited animation experience and honestly I'm not a good animator. I know you're fucking with me because this board is the easiest to fuck with (besides maybe /co/) but could you at least post something that looks good? Don't shit up the thread with non-pixel art that looks like ass.
>>2244871 >>2244874 >using le-weaboo fighting games of 2d subgenre that was dead for years and nowadays industry using different way to animate 2d sprites nowadays Calm down boy. Your dream of being a professional 2d artist will never come true because you are shit artist and focusing on autistic technique and butthurt rules instead on quality.
>>2244912 >You don't know shit about animation and you're a total faggot too; I'm pretty glad I'm not you, you visually impaired no-taste homo lmao. Holy shit how old are you? >mfw he even posted lmao no worries boy. when you will turn 18, your dad force you to go to college and you will end up with a shit job anyways
>>2244012 I bought that game based on this .gif and an article I'd read a week or two back on Gameinformer. While the humor can be a bit overdone and hammy (even to the point of being cringeworthy) I have to say I really enjoyed it. I kind of cheated, uninstalled and restarted early on but I don't feel bad about it because the faggot game tricked me, so I just tricked it back.
>>2244959 Actually I'm at the last encounter (as far as I'm aware); I'm waiting to go home from work and finish, I stayed up until past five this morning trying to beat it and only turned it off when I realized I'd have to walk like 20 minutes to the nearest box I'm aware of to get my cache of nice cream I'll doubtless need to stave off this swole ass nigga.
>>2244012 I really was hoping that this game would be as good as everyone said it would be and I really tried to like it but the writing was for the most part awful and even after just an hour of playing everything had gotten incredibly unfunny and stale.
Am I missing something? Do I need to be born after 1995 to think this is in any shape a good game? Do I need to have played mother and have read homestuck first? I am at a true loss as to why this game received such unanimous praise.
>>2245875 I actually think the humor goes down hill a little late in the game in particular because it starts getting more and more over the top (Alphys or whatever is very annoying and a source of a lot that). I thought the "serious" writing was well done enough to compensate for the extraneous humor that I didn't appreciate as much; also there was a bit too much gay shit. I almost thought I was watching Steven Universe a couple times.
>>2245591 >I am at a true loss as to why this game received such unanimous praise.
I enjoyed the writing more than I didn't, if that makes sense; personally I've always loved "Bullet-Hell" style games (though I don't play them very often, I think the last one I actually played is Dino Riki), as well as RPGs so the gameplay was fairly appealing to me as well. I also liked a lot of the music.
tl;dr - I laughed, I cried, I even got a little scared; use of "Game Maker" aside, very good indie game overall in my opinion considering it was just some probable literal fag and a few of his associates.
>>2244818 if you ask pixeljoint they would say no. if you ask literally anywhere else they would say yes.
but I dunno, I mean honestly it doesn't seem the most controlled at the pixel level really. The lines look very jagged in general, and it looks like there's not a lot of complex shading going on. For now, I would say that you need to up the contrast on the different shades because I can barely tell them apart.
>>2246392 >>2246387 I did it just to have fun, and I tought I'll ask for advice and help to know what should've & could've I've done better, but with this warm welcome I realised, why would I want to do something that has a community this cancerous?
>>2246396 I gave feedback just to have fun, thought I'd provide some feedback and help you to know what should've and could've you've done better, but with this calm response I realized, why would I want to provide feedback for artists this cancerous?
on a more serious note though, at least try to listen to the feedback, there may not have been much and sure it wasn't said very nice, but it is still feedback nonetheless.
If you just wanted to post "for fun", then were you really looking for feedback at all?
>>2246405 So far half of a single comment is feedbeck and 3,5 comments is just simple insulting. GJ. I tought 4chan might be useful for something but it seems that the whole thing is basicly the same shit as /b/.
>>2246404 Wow, great work you! This is really cool looking stuff XD. Did you make that all on your own?
Anyway, I think your work would look even better if you cleaned up the lines a little bit. Maybe even make the colors contrast more from each other so they don't look too similar, and use more realistic lighting instead of gradated lighting, that would look really cool! Also, as a fellow pixel artist ;) you don't have to post your picture at a large size 1x will do fine.
Anyway, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm asking for too much work from you D: You don't have to take my suggestions if you don't want to. But I hope you keep drawing and having fun, and happy pixelling! :D
>>2246410 Nice trolling, gj. XDD From today on I'll try to be as original as you are. These comments, man... You have some next level shit. :D:D Hope you'll keep up the good work and send everybody the fuck away when they ask for help or ask a question, because that's how it works! :D Hope I'll see you some day call someone Hitler or nigger because they ask a question. Witnessing it would be a great honor!
>>2246083 >I almost thought I was watching Steven Universe a couple times This sums up my experience perfectly. I'm not saying that it was all terrible, for the work of one or so guy it's entirely commendable but there's a lot of it that was honestly pretty bad. But like the other anon said, I might have had a higher opinion of the game if I had played it with no prior knowledge of it.
Shit rough art incoming. I want to make a Majora's Mask landscape image.
I'm kinda nervous about making a large drawing like this since I've never really done it before, so for now I'm just making shitty but fun roughs, just to get used to it but also to start to plan out the composition.
Any quick landscape advice before I really start to get into it?
>>2246445 You know I just got the idea that seeing clock town from a kinda aerial view would be cool, so I think the 1 point perspective will really help with that. Thanks!
Anyway, I'm thinking of doing something like this where you can see the swamp mountain off to the right and maybe stone tower on the left. It would be really cool if I could work in the ocean too, somehow.
>>2239699 >>2. Make everything bouncy and feel alive >This is the one that gets me. Pic related looks terrible imo, like the robot is having a seizure during an earthquake. Didn't know i will ever find a faggot who hates this kind of animation. However reading this thread i see that "pixelartist" have a variety of very specific hate.
Personally Probetson' "bouncy" animation is my favorite pixelart animation i have ever seen.
>>2246582 Not that anon and I know this is bait but
It's not that the animation style is bad in and of itself, but it's more that it feels overused, even within individual sprites. For example, I think the animation on the robot could work if you think of the robot itself as being a clunky mess that's about to fall apart, but otherwise robots should be staying relatively still, because metal isn't alive. That said, I think the flashing lights, siren and the smoke puffs work fine. They're more "acceptable" to me to be moving so fast.
The example you posted is better to me, because you can see the body moving more than the armor. In this case, the armor moves along with the body, but the armor is animated so it doesn't look like it squashes or stretches at all. Instead it keeps its form while moving with the body. (same for the weapon)
In general though, the bouncy animation feels to me like Probertson is just animating everything "because he can" without any restraint. The best way I can describe it is like the animation equivalent of a kid constantly jumping up and down and screaming "look at me look at me!"
With all that said, my personal favorite probertson animation is the one that he and Dixon made of The Simpsons. The entire first half was not only relatively reserved, but it was more inspired by the original simpsons opening animation. I loved that they even included Marge's hair swirl turning animation. When the couch gag came up, it didn't even go straight into Probertson's famous tall animations, they had a static effect like things were "coming apart" and even managed to include more references during that. Basically, the entire first half felt like reserved build up, with the static section being a great transition into the climax that was Probertson's famous tall animations.
It felt more earned to have crazy animation like that, and it even felt satisfying to have it go all out when everything else was properly restrained.
>>2246734 I also am not a fan of the overly bouncy animations, but I can see why they would work. I am not very familiar with Probertsons work, but the examples I see here remind me of sprites that would be used in a game. The bouncing animations give that impression of "look at me look at me!" and I can think that could come in very handy. When you're using a limited palette to still be able to make the sprites stand out from the background, while being able to use a wider range of color both on all parts of the level. Although I prefer more elaborate animations, I can see how this would be a more efficient way.
But no, you're right. I think the work he is most known for is Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and it very much feels like a super action-y arcade beat-em-up. Honestly I think it works for that. I should also say, some of his animations are actually kind of elaborate. You should check out his tall images sometime, they do have a lot of moving parts at least.
If anything, I think Probertson has found a nice niche for himself, and obviously he's put a lot of work into it and I appreciate that. It just feels weird to see him try to give general advice when he hasn't explored any art style other than his own.
>>2246922 >The bouncing animations give that impression of "look at me look at me!" its clearly visible that you are newfag. i doubt you have an experience of doing animations for games. i guess you just want to draw some animated waifus as a hobby. this explains your...weird reaction to "Bouncy animation"
i mean hell...probertson and people like him were here for years. tons of games and etc.
>>2247712 >>2247718 pic related for more inspiration. Man I wish the guy made more pixel art.
>>2247711 I'm honestly not so sure. I mean I think as a first time submission to the gallery, it would probably be accepted just fine. But if the artist say, posted it on the WIP forum first, I imagine there would be a little more "controversy."
The thing is, at least going by the cure tutorial, PixelJoint's definition of pixel art IS art that "takes advantage of the medium." See the quote:
"If the pixel art loses the sense of the importance of the pixels which construct it, then I don't think it can be called pixel art."
Thing is, this is an entirely subjective definition. By this definition, anyone who thinks a particular work isn't "good" by their own pixel art standards could potentially freely say that it isn't pixel art, despite the artist's intent.
Don't get me wrong, I don't really take issue with pixeljoint having this definition. If anything, I think it's necessary because the whole point of the site is to encourage the artistic control that we can have over pixels.
I guess I just have a hard time accepting that art made out of pixels somehow isn't always pixel art. I mean, if anything digital photographs are controlled on a pixel level that is actually far beyond anything any human pixel artist can do. It may be a formula that's placing the pixels, but the fact is each individual pixel is still being placed with the intention of creating an image.
The difference is that humans can control pixel placement in ways that no computer can.
>>2248144 actually, scratch what I said about it being accepted just fine. I just put the picture through image specs and it said there's 480 colors. To be fair, about 3/4 of that is transparency, but still.
Also, if the original artist is reading this, I hope I don't come across like I'm trying to discourage you. I actually like the largeness of the image and the details on it. I can tell you were meticulous with it and I would love to see the other ships.
>>2248144 the tutorial doesn't (or shouldn't) define pixel art for the site, it's only intended to teach people the craft. the submission rules come the closest to a definition of pixel art for PJ, but even they are only intended to control what gets into the gallery, not tell people what is/isn't pixel art. It's necessary to set parameters when you have to moderate a site dedicated exclusively to pixel art.
as for digital photographs being pixel art.... nah. it's more about the approach than the medium, "pixel art" existed long before the home computer (cross-stitching, etc.)
>>2248729 well that's, I mean that's exactly what I'm saying.
Pixeljoint requires its own definition of pixel art (maybe not the one on cure's tutorial) so that they can moderate what is or isn't accepted onto the site.
My personal definition of pixel art is simply art that is made out of pixels. So anything that has pixels in it, or the "idea of pixels" is pixel art to me. Post-it art, and even cross stitching I would include in that definition. Though I think cross stitching is slightly different because there's no "hard pixels" on it, not sure.
To me, digital art is pixel art because it is made up of pixels. I completely understand that the approach is different. If anything, Pixeljoint stresses human control over pixel art, not a computerized one. That's why they don't allow the use of gradient tools but will allow tools like the fill bucket. The fill bucket is essentially a faster way of placing pixels than having to place them each by hand. Gradient tools are a faster way to do anti-aliasing, but it's done more by a formula which takes away from our human control over the medium.
I honestly think if pixeljoint stressed their definition of pixel art as being human-controlled, it would solve a lot of confusion newer users have who use gradient tools and can't understand why the site won't accept their work.
>>2248935 No problem, I didn't know the guy's name so I just searched the hall of fame until I found an image in that style.
Anyway, the site does have options to send personal messages, if you'd like to try anyway. Besides that, pixeljoint and wayofthepixel both have seperate boards for job offers/seekers.
>>2249046 >there was never a time when pixel art didn't exist and no one had to create a definition for it
also >definitions don't change over time
I'm not saying my definition of pixel art is "right" It's just what makes the most sense to me. To be more technical though, I guess I wouldn't say that cross-stitching, post-it art and mosaic art, etc. are pixel art since actual pixels aren't involved. They're still very similar though.
>>2249435 You're focusing entirely on the medium. I think the focus should be on the approach, but a proper definition should refer to both approach and medium.
Considered purely as an approach, pixel art is arranging colored squares on a grid, with consideration given to how the most basic image element (the square) is placed according to its relationship with surrounding units. This gives us what the pixel artists call banding, dithering, anti-aliasing, etc. This approach has existed for at least a couple hundred years. We'll call it "grid-art."
Of course, "pixel art" is inherently digital, since "pixel" is half the name. We may say that pixel art is "digital grid-art." But to refer to all images created or displayed digitally as "pixel art" ignores the basis of this mode of art, and leaves us with a term so broad that it is essentially useless.
>>2249049 >implying I don't speak fluent japanese and didn't just track his twitter.
>>2249435 Thanks again! I'll have to keep that in mind going forward. I'll be honest, I come to a lot of these threads to scope out anons and (hopefully) their art, and decide whether I should make a move to see if they want a job, but I have yet to leap on anything yet. Not sure how welcomed it would be here.
>>2249900 that's a very good point, but I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think that referring to all digital images as pixel art ignores the approach that artists have developed. If anything, I think it's the other way around. If we only think of pixel art as a humanistic approach, we ignore the computerized approach to pixel art, with the implication that art that was not approached from a humanistic pixel standpoint means that the art actually "doesn't use pixels at all."
Don't get me wrong, I would feel very awkward to go and find any digital image and call it pixel art, because I fully understand that the approach/intent is different. The artist (or the computer) isn't thinking about how the pixels work with each other. The goal is only the end result of a desirable image. If anything, I call digital images pixel art on a technicality, that they are pixel art because technically "they are made out of pixels."
I absolutely agree that the approach needs to be focused on, and at least the way I see it, I'm not so much trying to ignore the humanistic approach many artists have developed. If anything, I'm trying to include the computerized approach. In essense, both approaches have a common goal, to create a desirable image. The humanistic approach to pixel art however, adds extra steps that say that the way the pixels themselves interract with each other, the pixel techniques used (dithering, AA, selout etc.), the palettes chosen, the use of each color, how limited it is or isn't, should all be appealing too, not just the final image.
(as an example in pic related, I resized the reference picture Cure used for his as a comparison for a computer's pixel rendering of the image and Cure's pixel rending of the image.)
I use the definition I use to include all possible approaches to pixel art and to try to get rid of any confusion I think people have, especially new users. Beyond just digital drawings and photographs, I also include the use of rixels and mixels and grixels and whatever other "-ixels" that aren't just pixels exist.
The computerized approach to pixel art is undesirable to me, but I can't ignore that it still uses pixels in some way.
With all that said, I don't think pixeljoint should change the rules they use to accept images into their gallery.
>>2250781 But I am cure. You can't use an example of my own art against me, that's against the rules.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see a use in calling anything made out of pixels "pixel art." A term so broadly defined is no longer useful. Saying that certain digital images aren't "pixel art" is in no way denying that they are made out of pixels, I think you're getting too caught up in semantics.
>>2250865 >I don't see a use in calling anything made out of pixels "pixel art." And I do (and I don't think it's that broad either), I guess at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're right that I'm basically arguing semantics though.
Honestly, I don't think the definition of pixel art I've seen from pixeljoint (or at least, on your tutorial) is wrong, if anything I think it's necessary for the site. I just feel like because it excludes certain, I guess you could call them medium-mixing techniques, that may lead to confusion for some newer users (and not just on Pixeljoint either, from what I've seen).
Like this picture >>2244012 Would you say that it's not pixel art at all because it uses modular animation? Or would you say that it's simply a mixed media thing?
>>2251047 Medium-mixing techniques I'm fine with. I don't even think we should call it "hybrid pixel art", I think filters and automatic gradients and the like are a natural evolution of pixel art and should be included in the term.
But digital photographs and digital painting, or traditional paintings displayed on a monitor? Not pixel art in the least.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.