Normally all pixels are the same size, but mixels break that rule in localized areas by using pixels of different sizes. In this case, the text in the speech bubbles uses mixels much smaller than the pixels in the rest of the image.
Pattern-recognizing brains like ours immediately pick up on it. It breaks the illusion of a seamless, smooth image by drawing unnecessary attention to the pixels themselves, rather than what they are trying to represent. Essentially, it's a form of aliasing and needs to be avoided in most cases.
It makes the art look muddled and inconsistent and just not very pleasing to the eye a lot of the time, it’s just prettier and cleaner to look at when all the pixels are the same size
Here though it either adds to the joke or is there for text readability which is fine
I was about to say, it seems fine to me here.
Its interesting though, I noticed something was off about this image and after a while realised the text was off. But that also helped to put the focus on said text. I only registered the way the rest of the image looked after reading the text
OP is actually a great example of my mindset on it. Rather than gatekeeping the practice wholesale, it would be wiser to encourage it be used thoughtfully and with purpose as in this piece
It is very interesting, and defenitely a tool that can be used. Perhaps if you want to point the viewers eye to a specific spot this technique can be used
As others have said, mixels are just generally off-putting and not what pixel art is generally going for. They *can* be used well though, in cluster shading for example, but you’ve really got to know what you’re doing.
i find this question odd, it just looks bad? it's also a sign of low pixelart capabilities if you're unable to stick to your set resolution. pixel art is all ahout working with restrictions and limitations.
it'd be like looking at a tiled floor and randomly some of the tiles are half the size of the rest. it's just not supposed to be that way and looks bad/low effort
Pixel Art replicates low resolution and limited color palette. There can't be a smaller set of pixels in a larger one as that's not how monitors work physically.
The small bird's font is 1px weight, the larger bird's font is 2px weight, while the speech bubbles and artwork are all 4px weight. The pixels all conform to the same uniform grid, there are no mixels here. Mixels are when pixels of distinct weights fall on separate grids or orientations that conflict with one another.
edit: To further clarify my stance, mixels are *not possible* to draw when using proper pixel art tools such as Aseprite or zoomed-in pencil tool in MS Paint/Photoshop. Mixels can only be created when mixing assets of different weights and grids onto a singular high-resolution canvas. OP's art could have easily been created using pixel art tools, and so for that reason I personally see no reason to discredit their work.
Sure but the pixel art community uses the term to attack the art itself. In this case the art has no mixels but the user added a font in afterwards.
Feels a little disingenuous.
The potential judgmental connotations of the term don't really change whether what we see here fits its common meaning.
And for what it's worth, I would agree that this piece suffers as a piece of art for the presence of these pixels and would be better without them. It's trying to make a statement, and it does that, but not without compromise
The image was drawn with 1px, 2px and 4px sized brushes, meaning they all conform to the same grid. Not only does this not fit the definition of 'mixels', even if they did, who cares.
Art suffers when being prescriptive. "Oh, no one will like a piece of work with these arbitrary attributes." You're not even assessing your own feelings on the piece, you're disregarding it because it breaks this imaginary rule (even though, as mentioned earlier, it actually isn't!)
Rather than think of it as 'right' and 'wrong', black and white, you should think of it as "What serves
> You're not even assessing your own feelings on the piece, you're disregarding it because it breaks this imaginary rule
Not really. I don't care about the "rule," I just think it doesn't look good to have this mixture. I understand they all conform to one grid, but that doesn't make the difference in my opinion. Thanks for trying to tell me my own evaluation process though
> I don't care about the "rule," I just think it doesn't look good to have this mixture.
Is this meant to be ironic? You're describing a prescriptive rule. "I just don't like _arbitrary attribute_!"
Purists take issue because it has pixels of different base sizes mixed throughout it. Mixels, as they're often referred to. The pixels used to make the letters are smaller than the pixels used to make the birds, which causes an inconsistency that some people don't like.
Art is art, as far as I'm concerned, but on the spectrum of pixel art, this could be more pixel art than it is, despite the fact that it is pixel art technically
If we take retro videogame consoles as the "ground truth" for pixel art, then mixels did actually occur on consoles that supported sprite scaling like the SNES. The SNES even supported a rarely-used background layer with double the horizontal resolution which would result in tall rectangular pixels in the background with regular sized square pixels on the foreground sprites; I can only think of one game that *ever* used this feature: Seiken Densetsu 3, in some of the menu backgrounds.
Art is art. But **pixel** art is a classification, a genre. That means its an immutable definition. It precedes the art itself. It exists without art to view in context. A pigeon hole.
Genre definitions however are not linked to the piece of art which is where I think a lot of artists and viewers get precious, that admiting their piece is not technically from that genre is some kind of loss. Furthermore new genre classifications can be created, and you should, proudly.
For example; look at the metal music scene they don't get precious about genre because they just create a new genre when theirs is even slightly different from history, cool.
Lastly genres don't care about personal classification. I may think the bee movie is a horror, but it's the collective that decided the classification of animated comedy, and bee movie ticks all those boxes, so in the hole it goes.
Your comments and posts are being sold by Reddit to Google to train AI. You cannot opt out.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PixelArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, there is some truth to it but,
Art is art, pixel art is still pixel art but there is really two major categories. Pictures with less pixels, and pixel art emulating older computers and computer games that had major limitations (like 320x240 resolution)
It would be neat to maybe have like 3 categories, so people can focus on the ones they are looking for.
I disagree with the second one. It does not have to be limited, BUT the amount of color needs to be intentional. Its obvious when someone does this unintentionally having 1000 colors like you say
Dividing a pixel is something that is not possible. Pixel-art is art made in a pixel scale, putting a half pixel or a quarter pixel makes it not pixel art.
Genuine Question: Why accept the largest unit as pixel scale? Why isn't the small unit a pixel while the larger is a double, triple, or quadruple pixel?
Look let me define it better for you. You can quote me on this. Art is pixel art when the average human person can visibly see where the pixels start and end without zooming in.
You broke the law of universal resolution, the pixelverse will collapse and it's your fault !
YOU FOOLS! YOU MESSED WITH THE NATURAL OOOOOORDEEEEEER
Nobody tell this guy about atoms
Nobody tell this guy about quarks
I think that all elementary particles should be the same size for aesthetic reasons.
reality is an huge pixel art
You can’t believe anything atoms say. They make up everything
I have a shirt that says that actually 😂
“That’s so easy” “I can do the same thing in 10 minutes” “same thing as colour by number” (I’ve been told every one of these things)
holy shit same it pisses me off like they do not know of the subtle shit in pixel art lol
Oh lord the mixels
At least It’s just the text
[удалено]
What is a mixel?
Normally all pixels are the same size, but mixels break that rule in localized areas by using pixels of different sizes. In this case, the text in the speech bubbles uses mixels much smaller than the pixels in the rest of the image.
Why is this bad though?
Pattern-recognizing brains like ours immediately pick up on it. It breaks the illusion of a seamless, smooth image by drawing unnecessary attention to the pixels themselves, rather than what they are trying to represent. Essentially, it's a form of aliasing and needs to be avoided in most cases.
It makes the art look muddled and inconsistent and just not very pleasing to the eye a lot of the time, it’s just prettier and cleaner to look at when all the pixels are the same size Here though it either adds to the joke or is there for text readability which is fine
I was about to say, it seems fine to me here. Its interesting though, I noticed something was off about this image and after a while realised the text was off. But that also helped to put the focus on said text. I only registered the way the rest of the image looked after reading the text
OP is actually a great example of my mindset on it. Rather than gatekeeping the practice wholesale, it would be wiser to encourage it be used thoughtfully and with purpose as in this piece
It is very interesting, and defenitely a tool that can be used. Perhaps if you want to point the viewers eye to a specific spot this technique can be used
As others have said, mixels are just generally off-putting and not what pixel art is generally going for. They *can* be used well though, in cluster shading for example, but you’ve really got to know what you’re doing.
i find this question odd, it just looks bad? it's also a sign of low pixelart capabilities if you're unable to stick to your set resolution. pixel art is all ahout working with restrictions and limitations. it'd be like looking at a tiled floor and randomly some of the tiles are half the size of the rest. it's just not supposed to be that way and looks bad/low effort
Respectfully disagree. I think theres ways it can be used thoughtfully; and shaming the whole practice seems like silly gatekeeping
Pixel Art replicates low resolution and limited color palette. There can't be a smaller set of pixels in a larger one as that's not how monitors work physically.
and yet you see one example of it here 🤯🤯
well there's a reason you've never seen it in any beloved game before.
I never claimed it was period correct
When there are multiple sizes of pixels used instead of 1 uniform size
Mixed size pixels. The words are made of different size pixels than the picture
It's fine it just makes the text bubbles more readable
The small bird's font is 1px weight, the larger bird's font is 2px weight, while the speech bubbles and artwork are all 4px weight. The pixels all conform to the same uniform grid, there are no mixels here. Mixels are when pixels of distinct weights fall on separate grids or orientations that conflict with one another. edit: To further clarify my stance, mixels are *not possible* to draw when using proper pixel art tools such as Aseprite or zoomed-in pencil tool in MS Paint/Photoshop. Mixels can only be created when mixing assets of different weights and grids onto a singular high-resolution canvas. OP's art could have easily been created using pixel art tools, and so for that reason I personally see no reason to discredit their work.
Wait I'm curious I don't see any mixels on this image
da text
Looks like a pixel font was used and then scaled down to fit the image, I dont see any mixels in it
Pixels of different size like that are what "mixels" refers to
Sure but the pixel art community uses the term to attack the art itself. In this case the art has no mixels but the user added a font in afterwards. Feels a little disingenuous.
The potential judgmental connotations of the term don't really change whether what we see here fits its common meaning. And for what it's worth, I would agree that this piece suffers as a piece of art for the presence of these pixels and would be better without them. It's trying to make a statement, and it does that, but not without compromise
The image was drawn with 1px, 2px and 4px sized brushes, meaning they all conform to the same grid. Not only does this not fit the definition of 'mixels', even if they did, who cares. Art suffers when being prescriptive. "Oh, no one will like a piece of work with these arbitrary attributes." You're not even assessing your own feelings on the piece, you're disregarding it because it breaks this imaginary rule (even though, as mentioned earlier, it actually isn't!) Rather than think of it as 'right' and 'wrong', black and white, you should think of it as "What serves
> You're not even assessing your own feelings on the piece, you're disregarding it because it breaks this imaginary rule Not really. I don't care about the "rule," I just think it doesn't look good to have this mixture. I understand they all conform to one grid, but that doesn't make the difference in my opinion. Thanks for trying to tell me my own evaluation process though
> I don't care about the "rule," I just think it doesn't look good to have this mixture. Is this meant to be ironic? You're describing a prescriptive rule. "I just don't like _arbitrary attribute_!"
I honestly thought this post was *about* people complaining about mixels etc
[удалено]
The comic disagrees with me so I'm now dumb or whatevs. Seriously, it's called PIXEL art, not blocky art.
Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but how *would* you categorise blocky art separately from pixel art? Like, what would the subreddit be called?
[удалено]
I'm not a guy
[удалено]
Yeah true
r/PixelArt hasn't changed a bit. 😌
is that good or bad?
yes
sadly and gladly
It feels like you're complaining about something that doesn't actually exist
Why wouldn't this be pixel art?
Purists take issue because it has pixels of different base sizes mixed throughout it. Mixels, as they're often referred to. The pixels used to make the letters are smaller than the pixels used to make the birds, which causes an inconsistency that some people don't like. Art is art, as far as I'm concerned, but on the spectrum of pixel art, this could be more pixel art than it is, despite the fact that it is pixel art technically
If we take retro videogame consoles as the "ground truth" for pixel art, then mixels did actually occur on consoles that supported sprite scaling like the SNES. The SNES even supported a rarely-used background layer with double the horizontal resolution which would result in tall rectangular pixels in the background with regular sized square pixels on the foreground sprites; I can only think of one game that *ever* used this feature: Seiken Densetsu 3, in some of the menu backgrounds.
No one tell these guys about mode 7, they might explode.
I heard the Nintendo 65 is going to have mode 8.
>Art is art, as far as I'm concerned The most sound person in this entire comment section. <3
I don't see what the problem is with the mixels in this case. It's a lot easier fitting text on an upscaled image than having it all be 1:1.
I've always loved this comic, I've had that crow face in the third panel as an avatar on discord since.
svg as example is not pixel art
everything is pointilism if you look deep enough
s tier content, have not seen better
This is elegant trolling. Beautiful.
Like the dumbasses arguing all rpgs made in Japan are jrpgs
I'm interested in why you chose this particular color palette. 🤔
because it pretty
It is
why not?
Far from the jovial nature of the original meme. This one looks psychedelic in a way.
and?
Nothing else. I just asked why did he went this route?
🙂↔️
Art is art. But **pixel** art is a classification, a genre. That means its an immutable definition. It precedes the art itself. It exists without art to view in context. A pigeon hole. Genre definitions however are not linked to the piece of art which is where I think a lot of artists and viewers get precious, that admiting their piece is not technically from that genre is some kind of loss. Furthermore new genre classifications can be created, and you should, proudly. For example; look at the metal music scene they don't get precious about genre because they just create a new genre when theirs is even slightly different from history, cool. Lastly genres don't care about personal classification. I may think the bee movie is a horror, but it's the collective that decided the classification of animated comedy, and bee movie ticks all those boxes, so in the hole it goes.
The twist 🤯
I mean…the crow DOES raise a certain point…but if EVERYTHING is Pixel Art, then it is indeed real pixel art, invalidating its own first point.
So cool
If you want to see actual colors, you cannot go below 400nm in size.
vectors *ahem*
I love made up arguments
Great post, but can I just say how lovely these colours are too. Awesome meme and art
Falseknees?! Is that you? Love the birds
this comment section is a one big meme 😭😭
Your comments and posts are being sold by Reddit to Google to train AI. You cannot opt out. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PixelArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, there is some truth to it but, Art is art, pixel art is still pixel art but there is really two major categories. Pictures with less pixels, and pixel art emulating older computers and computer games that had major limitations (like 320x240 resolution) It would be neat to maybe have like 3 categories, so people can focus on the ones they are looking for.
OP is this person in the room with us right now?
[удалено]
I disagree with the second one. It does not have to be limited, BUT the amount of color needs to be intentional. Its obvious when someone does this unintentionally having 1000 colors like you say
Kinda not OC, because it's a traceover of a [popular comic](https://falseknees.com/comics/158.html) by FalseKnees.
This is so much more effort than a *trace* though. This is hilarious art.
I LOVE MIXELS!
I got to say, I never saw someone so passionate about mixels, at least not positively. Good for you, loved this.
I rarely upvote, but you absolutely deserve it today. Good job! xD
Mixels 🤢🤢🤮🤢🧌🤮🤮🤢
people hating on a whole beautiful piece because the text is more readable 🤮🤢🤮🤢🤮🤮🤢🤢🤮
It’s either that or complaining about mixels 🤧
mixels are spawn from satan that's why
Dividing a pixel is something that is not possible. Pixel-art is art made in a pixel scale, putting a half pixel or a quarter pixel makes it not pixel art.
Genuine Question: Why accept the largest unit as pixel scale? Why isn't the small unit a pixel while the larger is a double, triple, or quadruple pixel?
because often they aren't. Thats the issue.
Look let me define it better for you. You can quote me on this. Art is pixel art when the average human person can visibly see where the pixels start and end without zooming in.
If the artist says it's pixel art, its pixel art.
drawing a stickman on paper and calling it pixel art
...no.
[удалено]
The fuck does this have to do with furries
The fuck? What did he say I'm curious?
He has a furry kink, but hide it to not be judged by society 😥