I am working on a classic RPG that requires a pixelated style of graphics. I want to do this by making a small image and scaling it up. However, when I do this, it gets fuzzy. Is there any way to scale it while keeping a crisp edge for every pixel, or do I just need to make a bigger image?
You cannot scale an image expecting it to keep a crisp aspect if it's not made in a big enough resolution in the first place. In your case you would have to make a bigger image and scale it down to make the small image.
If you do not use the large image all the time however, you should consider having two versions of the same image (one small / one large) for optimization sake.
Related
I am working with GD library, and I'm looking for a way to detect the nearest pixel to the middle center of shapes, as well as total area used by each shape in a monochromic black-and-white image.
I'm having difficulty coming up with an efficient algorithm to do this. If you have done something similar to this in the past, I'd be grateful for any solution that would help.
Check out the binary image library
Essentially, Otsu threshold to separate out foreground from background, then label connected components. That particular image looks very clean but you might need morph ops to clean it up a bit and get rid of small holes and other artifacts.
Then you have area trivially (count pixels in component) or almost as trivially (use the weighted area function that penalises edge pixels). Centre is just mean.
http://malcolmmclean.github.io/binaryimagelibrary/
#MalcolmMcLean is right but there are remaining difficulties (if you are after maximum accuracy).
If you threshold with Otsu, there are a few pairs of "kissing" dots which will form a single blob using connected component analysis.
In addition, Otsu threshoding will discard some of the partially filled edge pixels so that the weighted averages will be inaccurate. A cure would be to increase the threshold (up to 254 is possible), but that worsens the problem of the kissing dots.
A workaround is to keep a low threshold and dilate the blobs individually to obtain suitable masks that cover all edge pixels. Even so, slight inaccuracies will result in the vicinity of the kissings.
Blob splitting by the watershed transform is also possible but more care is required to handle the common pixels. I doubt that a prefect solution is possible.
An alternative is the use of subpixel edge detection and least-squares circle fitting (after blob detection with a very low threshold to separate the dots). By avoiding the edge pixels common to two circles, you can probably achieve excellent results.
I'm researching the the possibility of performing occlusion culling in voxel/cube-based games like Minecraft and I've come across a challenging sub-problem. I'll give the 2D version of it.
I have a bitmap, which infrequently has pixels get either added to or removed from it.
Image Link
What I want to do is maintain some arbitrarily small set of geometry primitives that cover an arbitrarily large area, such that the area covered by all the primitives is within the colored part of the bitmap.
Image Link
Is there a smart way to maintain these sets? Please not that this is different from typical image tracing in that the primitives can not go outside the lines. If it helps, I already have the bitmap organized into a quadtree.
SVG images are great for high detailed graphics, but since they consist of a number of coordinates that need to be calculated before rendering, are they potentially bad for performance, say compared to rendering a jpg which is simply drawing an array of pre-calculated pixels?
I use Context.drawImage, and I do not know if the SVG graphics need to be calculated every drawn frame of the canvas or if they are perhaps cached somehow? or maybe I'm worrying about nothing?
The performance will depend on your specific application and the complexity of your graphic, but generally speaking the vector graphics are not going to have a significant impact. Your main bottleneck will typically be in manipulating the pixel data in the canvas; the larger your canvas, the more time it will take to draw.
Unless you are redrawing the canvas every frame however, the only calculations that are performed at all are those made when you initially draw the image. When you are not modifying it, the canvas is effectively nothing more than a static bitmap.
As a brief background, I have been slowly chugging away at the core framework of a game I've been wanting to make for some time now. It has gotten to the point where I want to start really fleshing it out with some graphics assets other than colored boxes. And this brings me to the heart of my question:
What is the best method for creating graphics assets that appear the same quality independent of the device they are drawn on?
My game is styled after Pokemon, so I want to capture the 16-bit feel while still remaining crisp regardless of the device resolution. Does this mean I just create a ton of duplicate sprite sheets? i.e. a 16x16 32x32 48x48 64x64 version of each asset? Or should I be making vector art and rendering it out specifically for each device? Or is there some other alternative I haven't considered?
Thanks!
If by 16-bit feel you mean a classic old-school "pixelated" style (but with crisp edges). Then you can just draw them in the minimal dimension and upscale by whatever factor you need using a Pixel Art Scaling Algorithm, the simplest being nearest neighbour. There are of course many algos that produce much nicer results than NN like the 2xSaI and hqx family of algorithms, and RotSprite if you need rotation.
If you want clean antialiased edges you might want to check out this Microsoft Research paper: Depixelizing Pixel Art
You can then use these algos as a loading pre-pass for your game.
Alternatively, you could shift them "earlier" into your art pipeline to help speed up generation of multiple (resolution/transform) variants, which you could further touch up. This choice largely depends on your level of labor resources and perfectionism. Note also that this loses the "purity" of the solution since it violates DRY because updates will require changes in all variants of a sprite.
I would suggest to first try out some of these upscaling filters and see if you are happy with the results. If you are, you can get away with a loading prepass, which is by far the most desirable outcome because it reduces work and maintenance by a large factor.
Pardon me if my lingo is not correct as I'm new to game programming. I've been looking at some open source projects and noticed that some sprites are split up into several files, all of which are grouped together to make a 2d object look like it's animating. That's straight forward. Then I'll see a different approach, with the 2d object all in one png file or something similar, all next to each other.
Is there an advantage of using one approach to another? Should sprites be in separate files? Why are they sometimes all on one sheet?
The former approach is typically more straightforward and easy to program, so you see a lot of it in open source projects.
The second approach is more efficient on modern graphics hardware, because it allows you to draw multiple different sprites from one large texture by specifying different u,v coordinates to select each individual sprite from the composite sheet. Because u,v coordinates can be streamed along with vertex data to a shader, this allows you to draw a large group of sprites much more efficiently than you could if you had to switch textures (which means changing shader state) for each poly. That means you can draw more sprites per millisecond, and thus get more on screen.
Every time you switch your currently bound texture you incur a penalty (sometimes a very big one if the system runs out of memory and starts paging textures in and out). So the more things you can draw with one texture the better. Going to extremes, if you never switched texture bindings, you'd incur 0 penalty.
On the other hand, video cards limit the maximum size of a texture, so you can only group smaller textures into a big one so much. The older the card the smaller the texture size you can use. So if you want to make your game work on a large variety of cards, you have to limit your textures to a more normal size (or have different sets of textures for different cards).
Another problem is that sometimes the stuff in your virtual world just doesn't pertain itself to being grouped like this. While you can have a big texture with every little decoration for your UI (window frames, buttons, etc), you're gonna have a harder time to use a single texture for different enemies because they might not even appear on the screen at the same time, or you might be unable to draw them one after the other because of the back-to-front drawing scheme necessary for transparency.
Not so long ago one reason to use packed sprites instead of seperate ones was that graphics hardware was limited to power-of-two textures (256, 512, 1024, ...). So you would waste a good amount of memory by not packing the sprites as you would have to enlarge everything to power-of-two dimensions before you could upload it. Packing multiple sprites into a single texture worked around that.
Another reason is that its much quicker to load one big image file from the HD then it is to load hundreds of small ones. This is still the case as file access comes with quite a large overhead per file, so the less files you have the faster things become. And especially with small sprites you can easily turn hundred files into a single one, so the saving can be quite noticable.
There are however also reason against having everything in one texture. For one OpenGL is no longer limited to power-of-two textures, so any size will work. But more importantly, packing everything in one texture has negative side effects. When you for example have lots of scaling in a game you have to be careful about the borders of your sprites, as colors will blend into neighboring sprites giving you ugly artifacts. You can avoid that to a certain degree by adding extra space around your sprites, but its not a perfect solution. Having everything in one texture also limits what you can do with the image. For certain effects, such as a waterfall for example, you might want to do the animation by simply offsetting the UV coordinates of the texture, you can't do that so easily when everything is packed into a single texture.