![]() ![]() You're talking about how art is designed with an expectation about the manner in which it is later consumed. Of course, opinions differ, but you can totally vote with your wallet on that. It's also worth mentioning that for most of us today, graphics tastes have changed quite a lot, so emulating the original blur and smear of an NTSC display is perceived as far less of a generally acceptable aesthetic solution than rendering rectangular blocks is. But I would like to point out as someone who grew up in the eighties, people referred to those little atomic picture cells rendered on the display as " pixels", not as " my monitor's representation of a pixel". There is no question about the heritage of 8bit-style art, and whether you find modern renditions ugly or not is not really a concern here. ![]() In my opinion, there is nothing to freak out about, and I don't see why this article specifically prompts such a needlessly absolutist response. While the block is not a pixel or voxel in the strictest sense, I do think it's a reasonable linguistic shortcut to use that word in this context, and it's not unprecedented to use the description of an abstract thing interchangeably for its more concrete representation. The issue now becomes how to render that data on the screen, and blocks are still a way to make this data look good. I would say though it's fair game to call the underlying data "pixels" and "voxels" - in most retro-style games these assets are indeed stored internally at that level of abstraction. ![]() Yes, so technically we should probably call the modern rendering technique of pixels and voxels block-based rendering. This mantra was also the reason why MagicaVoxel, the "voxel" editor mentioned in the article was received relatively poorly on HN about a year ago: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |