evincarofautumn submitted this pixel this week, also shown on A below.
I sent it back because the description as he wrote it was confusing and in my mind the transparency excercise wasn't even required. I will admit that this is a topic worthy of discussion since he makes a great point with this comment "...This must be pixel art, since I placed every pixel in the image.  How do a few extra bits in the alpha channel make any difference as to whether it's genuine pixel art?' In general I must agree, however it is a grey area for me. It would be great to get some feedback about this from all members in order to help in adding pixels to the gallery and even for all to learn from. anyhoo...
The reason I have to in the end send transparancies back of any sort (those already in the gallery may have to be re-looked at depending on how this convo goes).
In B I have shown the pixels which evincarofautumn uses as transparency. Real hand drawn pixels but with alpha channel transparency. He only uses 2 colors for this and all in the AA. Problem #1 is that he missed the nose and has 2 uncontrolled pixels (NPA).
I took one of my pixels C and made some (scrappy) AA as solid pixels D using 12 colors from the same palette. This I made 50% transparent and added to E. I still see no essential problem with this, since my total is 33 colors of which I had total control and placed 'one pixel at a time'.
The downside from my point of view is that this opens a can of worms. Take another pixel of mine F which uses 48 colors. In G I use 10 colors placed 'one pixel at a time' and make those 50% transparent. In H it is overlaid and unlike B or E, the color count has 74 colors I neither planned nor chose myself. Almost 2/3 is not mine , that means NPA. I can very easily remake H using my 48 colors (maybe add 1 or 2 more) and so transparencies are actually a lazy copout. Pixelart requires patience above all else (see Oekaki) It just doesn't seem right for Pixeljoint.
Yes, in commercial projects, shortcuts like these are accepted but only because finance rules the day. I think Pixeljoint should remain pure not because we are not willing to change and evolve but because by keeping it true/
simple* we learn, improve and are the better for it. Even if you end up in a commercial setting you have the fundamentals as a base. Its like subjects in school you never use irl but need to understand the basics of.

discuss...





*true/simple= GIF or PNG painted pixel by pixel (within reason) - Sedgemonkey

Thank you for your consideration of this piece; I hope to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. 

As you mention at the beginning of your post, I am indeed of the opinion that pixel art remains genuine pixel art no matter how many channels you might use.  I always work on one layer, because I am a fundamentalist in that respect.  I do strongly believe, however, in the use of per-pixel alpha because it allows for versatile pixel art with a wide range of applications.

All those reading this topic, please share your opinions!  I am very excited to hear what the members of PixelJoint have to say about this possibly controversial issue.

Cheers,
    Jon "evincarofautumn" Purdy.

"there's no big merit in using transparency layers to shade"

I agree with that sentiment.  In this piece, however, I used transparency to antialias so that the pixel art would appear with smooth outlines on a background of any colour (possibly excluding black ) as opposed to the standard method of antialiasing using colours from your background.  I thus didn't create the kind of palette explosion that jalonso mentioned, adding only two colours (incl. alpha) on the same layer as the rest of the piece.

Well, my background just so happens to have an alpha of zero, so I figured that I would blend in the alpha channel to make the piece display well on any background, since I couldn't decide on an appropriate background colour anyway.  Since I like antialiasing (and, incidentally, vector art) very much, this makes sense to me.

"there's people who actually pick every color carefully based on their exp and knowledge"

Who's to say that I didn't choose my palette carefully based on my knowledge and style of pixel art?  Every pixel artist, from the novice to someone as well-versed as, say, Fool, produces pixel art based on their knowledge and skill set.

Whether a palette includes colours that "break the fourth wall" by interacting with their background seems to me a non-issue.

I appreciate your comments very much, and, yes, your criticisms.  We're all trying to learn here. 

Cheers,
    Jon "evincarofautumn" Purdy

Transparency is fine. Ironic that some mods reject many pieces without transparency, then say that partial transparency is not allowed. One can't AA for a variable background, partial transparency solves this problem.

However if you say only full transparency is allowed then people need to stop bitching about not AAing sprites. Transparency at any level is a way to accommodate a variable background. Not everyone has the same configuration with forum themes. Anyone that disagrees with me can go stick their minuscule weener in a pencil sharpener.  Even if you aren't making a "sprite" you still have to have your image sit on top of the forum background. Alpha channels are for the artist who wants to make sure that the Luminescence value is maintained against a variable backdrop. As far as "Pixel Purity" goes, old school pixel artists have been using alpha values for a relatively long time. The alpha channel concept dates back to the 70's. It's nothing newfangled, it was there in the early pixel art days. It was pretty taxing on most processors however.

Edited by Pixel_Outlaw - 22 July 2007 at 9:23pm

I've always been under the impression that pixel art cannot use transparency no matter what. If MSPaint doesn't have the tool, then it shouldn't be used. That's how I figure it.



Agreed. Also, using a transparency tool is not considered pixel art by me because it is a massive help, and it isn't...





Pwnt.

Ultimatum?, now, now.

transparencies should be allowed as long as they are afterwards cleaned up and palette optimized.

the funny thing is that a lot of people use alpha transparency in photoshop, then save as .gif and thereby creating lots of stray looking pixels

Man I totally agree with you 1,000,000%, in the case of your pixel. Its the abuse that's a concern. Who will police it, who will oversee it. More importantly who can see it when not used on the exterior as you have. I'm still not convinced about this matter...

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having alpha transparency, though?

also, no one would ever noticed the alpha channel if you didn't mentioned it in the description. silly.

jalonso may I ask if PJs is any closer to making a decision/ruling on the acceptance of the use of transparencies in PixelArt?

As PixelArt Gallery Director at deviantArt I am now faced with an ever growing problem of transparencies being used in massive and in my opinion unnecessary proportions.

I would like to keep as close to the philosophy of PJ with regard PixelArt at deviantArt.

I am prepared to keep PixelArt as free from transparencies as possible at dA but I need to know how PJ feels about this....

As was mentioned above, can there be dispensation for commercial applications but a more conservative attitude toward their use on purely recreation artwork?

Is it possible for some decision to be made with regards this ever growing problem?

It's kind of like learning Algebra 101 and not being allowed to use a calculator on the final test.  If you use the calculator you don't solve the problem yourself.  Instead you find a quick and easy shortcut which undermines the whole point of the course.  You don't learn long division with a calculator, you need the old pad and paper.