4 ms·

"In 2D there is both pixel art and regular art" I'm sorry, but this just cracks me up! LOL! (To explain, "regular art" was and still is pixel art, and "pixel

by _0ffh 10y ago

"In 2D there is both pixel art and regular art" I'm sorry, but this just cracks me up! LOL! (To explain, "regular art" was and still is pixel art, and "pixel art" is pixel art at an artificially low resolution, emulating the lower hardware capabilities of old machines.) And to answer your question: When computers get fast enough and have enough memory, you could have voxels at higher resolutions. When individual voxels do practically get too small to see, you have the analog of what happened with pixel art.

grenoire 10y ago
Your own definitions do not even add up. Regular images (not regular art) are technically infinite resolution images with the only limitation being the 32bpp colour scheme (which can go up infinitely too, but displays are a limitation) Pixel art is a style and movement replicating the low resolution and limited colour (and sometimes other limitations such as sprite limits per scanline of NES) sprites, especially of older games.
- _0ffh 10y ago
  I was making a good natured comment, and not trying to put anyone down. And I cannot see any inconsistencies in my explanation. We were calling pixel artists "pixel artists" before "pixel art" came to be a distinctive low resolution style. That's just a fact. And, no, there is no such thing as infinite resolution.
  - grenoire 10y ago
    There is infinite resolution, just not infinite space.
    - khedoros 10y ago
      Even an image created in a physical medium (e.g. oil paints) has a limited resolution. Vector/polygon art is "infinite resolution" (but not infinite detail/complication), and so are some other forms of mathematically-defined images (example: fractals like the Mandelbrot set, which are infinitely detailed as well).
  - _0ffh 10y ago
    @grenoire "There is infinite resolution, just not infinite space." Now you're getting philosophical! :)
    - grenoire 10y ago
      It's true though; not enough space for display, and not enough space for storage!
rhaps0dy 10y ago
> When computers get fast enough and have enough memory, you could have voxels at higher resolutions I thought they were fast enough and with enough memory for this, at least with static scenes in the style of this portfolio. Do you know of any art created this way?
- _0ffh 10y ago
  So that's what you were getting at. I've never seen anything like what you describe. I suppose it would be a very tall order to pay the same attention to every detail in a high resolution voxel-image as in a high resolution pixel-image. I think the most practical way out would be procedural generation, but then it's arguably not manual art anymore. I guess it could be practical with the right kind of environment. If you had all the tools of a good pixler like Deluxe Paint extended to a voxel-painting program.
- _0ffh 10y ago
  While it's not manual art, but procedurally generated, this here should count as hight resolution voxel art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S530Vwa33G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S530Vwa33G0
  - rhaps0dy 10y ago
    Oh neat. That's made by generating and then rendering voxels? As opposed to throwing rays and calculating the intersection with the fractal's equation. I'm thinking that maybe rendering voxels is both slower and produces worse results in this case.
    - _0ffh 10y ago
      I think the question of how you are rendering your voxels is a technicality. Redering voxels does not to my mind imply a specific rendering technique any more than rendering vector graphics does. When I render a low resolution voxel image using vector descriptions of the cubes containing those voxels and then passing them through a rasterizer, is it still a voxel image? Certainly, because the image is natively described as a mapping from coordinates to present/not-present flags (and optionally color). I can confidently say that the native description of the objects seen in that video is a direct mapping from 3d-coordinates to values. [Edit: So you can't just simply directly calculate an intersection point with a polygon. If you wanna cast a ray, you have to sample the mapping all along the way the ray is taking, in discrete steps, until you get a "hit". Optionally, you can then use e.g. bisection to get a more precise position of the intersection.] For you edification, here's another video of a high-res voxel world. The voxel models used where converted from vectorized surface models. But the description of the models used by the renderer is a proper voxel description, maybe some octree-like thing, or whatever they came up with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Ets6bWjEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Ets6bWjEQ

by _0ffh 10y ago

grenoire 10y ago

Your own definitions do not even add up. Regular images (not regular art) are technically infinite resolution images with the only limitation being the 32bpp colour scheme (which can go up infinitely too, but displays are a limitation) Pixel art is a style and movement replicating the low resolution and limited colour (and sometimes other limitations such as sprite limits per scanline of NES) sprites, especially of older games.

_0ffh 10y ago
I was making a good natured comment, and not trying to put anyone down. And I cannot see any inconsistencies in my explanation. We were calling pixel artists "pixel artists" before "pixel art" came to be a distinctive low resolution style. That's just a fact. And, no, there is no such thing as infinite resolution.
- grenoire 10y ago
  There is infinite resolution, just not infinite space.
  - khedoros 10y ago
    Even an image created in a physical medium (e.g. oil paints) has a limited resolution. Vector/polygon art is "infinite resolution" (but not infinite detail/complication), and so are some other forms of mathematically-defined images (example: fractals like the Mandelbrot set, which are infinitely detailed as well).
- _0ffh 10y ago
  @grenoire "There is infinite resolution, just not infinite space." Now you're getting philosophical! :)
  - grenoire 10y ago
    It's true though; not enough space for display, and not enough space for storage!

rhaps0dy 10y ago

> When computers get fast enough and have enough memory, you could have voxels at higher resolutions I thought they were fast enough and with enough memory for this, at least with static scenes in the style of this portfolio. Do you know of any art created this way?

_0ffh 10y ago
So that's what you were getting at. I've never seen anything like what you describe. I suppose it would be a very tall order to pay the same attention to every detail in a high resolution voxel-image as in a high resolution pixel-image. I think the most practical way out would be procedural generation, but then it's arguably not manual art anymore. I guess it could be practical with the right kind of environment. If you had all the tools of a good pixler like Deluxe Paint extended to a voxel-painting program.
_0ffh 10y ago
While it's not manual art, but procedurally generated, this here should count as hight resolution voxel art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S530Vwa33G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S530Vwa33G0
- rhaps0dy 10y ago
  Oh neat. That's made by generating and then rendering voxels? As opposed to throwing rays and calculating the intersection with the fractal's equation. I'm thinking that maybe rendering voxels is both slower and produces worse results in this case.
  - _0ffh 10y ago
    I think the question of how you are rendering your voxels is a technicality. Redering voxels does not to my mind imply a specific rendering technique any more than rendering vector graphics does. When I render a low resolution voxel image using vector descriptions of the cubes containing those voxels and then passing them through a rasterizer, is it still a voxel image? Certainly, because the image is natively described as a mapping from coordinates to present/not-present flags (and optionally color). I can confidently say that the native description of the objects seen in that video is a direct mapping from 3d-coordinates to values. [Edit: So you can't just simply directly calculate an intersection point with a polygon. If you wanna cast a ray, you have to sample the mapping all along the way the ray is taking, in discrete steps, until you get a "hit". Optionally, you can then use e.g. bisection to get a more precise position of the intersection.] For you edification, here's another video of a high-res voxel world. The voxel models used where converted from vectorized surface models. But the description of the models used by the renderer is a proper voxel description, maybe some octree-like thing, or whatever they came up with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Ets6bWjEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Ets6bWjEQ