I call it "pixel"

[th3rmite]

 

[Scotty_SFF]

its for what now?

 

[TECHKnight]

It's art, man. It's Digital. It's Digital Artwerk™

 

[DeathMan]

this man's skill is unfathomable!!

....

hehe

 

[GlobalFear]

Technically its 57,120 pixels......

 

[mikeblas]

Are you sure? I don't think the black ones count; since they match the background, you can't prove they're really there.

 

[DeathMan]

Technically its 57,120 pixels......

man... and to think... you could be helping starving children... but instead you spend the time to count individual pixels...

COME ON PEOPLE

 

[GlobalFear]

Well that or you could multiply height x width......
Counting individual pixels sounds much [H]arder though. Yep, I counted them all.

 

[GlobalFear]

Are you sure? I don't think the black ones count; since they match the background, you can't prove they're really there.

Positive, you need to buy a new monitor if you think those colors are the same.

 

[mikeblas]

Positive, you need to buy a new monitor if you think those colors are the same.

I checked with Photoshop; the top right and bottom left squares are all RGB(0,0,0) and no transparency mapping is defined.

We could also count only 64 pixels. 30 are bright red, 2 are dark red, and 32 are black.

 

[rayman2k2]

We could also count only 64 pixels. 30 are bright red, 2 are dark red, and 32 are black.

Count again? The image size is 238 x 240. How are you only getting 64 pixels?

 

[mikeblas]

Count again? The image size is 238 x 240. How are you only getting 64 pixels?

The image might be magnified representation. You can draw the same image with larger pixels and a smaller pixel count:

####
####
####
###*
    *###
    ####
    ####
    ####

If each character is a pixel, a space is black, an octothorpe is red, and a splat is dark red, we've created the same image with only 64 pixels. It's just that these 64 pixels are bigger than your 57,120 pixles. Fewer dots per inch, say.

 

[rayman2k2]

The image might be magnified representation. You can draw the same image with larger pixels and a smaller pixel count:

####
####
####
###*
    *###
    ####
    ####
    ####

If each character is a pixel, a space is black, an octothorpe is red, and a splat is dark red, we've created the same image with only 64 pixels. It's just that these 64 pixels are bigger than your 57,120 pixles. Fewer dots per inch, say.

The summary of the picture says it is 96dpi. I'm gonna assume that it's 96 dpi.

 

[mikeblas]

Let me try to make it clearer. The image divides into regular areas, each of which can be a pixel. Because of its symmetry and balance (something, as Artwerkers, you should be trained to notice, right?) it is easily represented with only 64 pixels instead of 57,120.

Further, one could argue that it's actually two images of 16 pixels each against a black background.

 

[nota]

it is easily represented with only 64 pixels instead of 57,120.

You're defying your own logic there. You're counting the black pixels (or 'space'...). But it doesn't matter. The picture isn't transparent even if it was - it still occupies a defined space. A defined space, that despite any scaling is still static and representative of the artist's motives and therefore, is meant to be protrayed as an image with 57,120 pixels.


And the background on replies isn't black, furthering the notion that black spaces do indeed "count".

 

[mikeblas]

You're defying your own logic there.

Not at all; my logic is perfectly consistent. It's just that I'm offering alternate and seperate explanations. One explanation is a single image of 64 pixels with no background; and the other is two images, each of 16 pixels, against a black background. That background is in the image, not the forum.

If you try to forget what the image's attributes are physically and think of them logically, I think you'll realize it's quite simple.

Meanwhile, what evidence do you have of the artist's motives? Perhaps the problem is that they couldn't reasonably represent an image of 8x8 pixels in this medium, so they resized it my mapping it to a larger count. In this medium, their intent is far from static -- it's configurable by the user viewing the image in at least a few different ways.

 

[th3rmite]

I'm very flattered that there is so much discussion concerning my artwork. It's my first piece to get any kind of critical acclaim. Thank you.

 

[styleboy]

I'd call it 'eye-sore'

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

It's a far better physiological study than it is art work.

 

[rayman2k2]

Let me try to make it clearer. The image divides into regular areas, each of which can be a pixel. Because of its symmetry and balance (something, as Artwerkers, you should be trained to notice, right?) it is easily represented with only 64 pixels instead of 57,120.

Further, one could argue that it's actually two images of 16 pixels each against a black background.

I fully understand what you are trying to say. But let me put it this way - I couldn't care less. Good thing it's represented by 64 pixels. Awesome. Sweet. But do you really need to write useless posts trying to prove your point? So what if there are 57,120 pixels? So what if there are 64? Whatever happened to "To each their own". Do you seriously care that much to prove someone wrong?

 

[mikeblas]

Do you seriously care that much to prove someone wrong?

I'm not out to prove you wrong. I'm just answering your question.

 

[calebb]

This thread delivers.

Also, I love the OPs art!

 

[th3rmite]

This thread delivers.

Also, I love the OPs art!

Thanks!

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

How's that?

 

[th3rmite]

How's that?

I think it is an excellent excercise in qalitative pixelation techniques. What program did you use to make it? I used paint.exe to make my masterpiece "Pixel"