Yep. It will create something that at a glance looks like pixel art, then you zoom in and find anti-aliased rectangular pixels made out of three different shades of the main color, a weird line, and no clear grid.
A whole song and dance to post-process a broken pixel art image into a fixed grid. I’d rather just have talent or pay a human being that will make art in the first place, thanks.
Also, the example shown would be a terrible image to use as an asset, by the way. It’s a clear example of not pixel art, rather, 2D art forced to be interpolated in a “pixel like” fashion (aka what happens if you do a few nearest neighbor passes and then a fixed grid downsampling)
Note that there’s more than one model to do pixel art and there’s pixel art LoRAs that do a decent job. There’s loads of flexibility when generating this kind of thing.
Also, you can just tell it to generate a thousand over like 10 minutes and pick the best one and use that as a base to improve upon. AI is just a single tool in the workflow.
I also want to point out that not everyone can just pay someone. Don’t be paternalistic: If people want to use AI in their workflow for any reason that’s their concern. To angrily throw your hands in the air and say, “I’m not touching it because AI!” is like giving free money to the big publishers.
You’re setting a completely unnecessary high bar, “you must be this rich to ride.”
The person above you is wrong, while a generalist model will struggle to make valid pixel art, either a specially trained model or one with elements to force a specific structure could make generative pixel art.
even if it is exclusively trained on pixel art?
Yep. It will create something that at a glance looks like pixel art, then you zoom in and find anti-aliased rectangular pixels made out of three different shades of the main color, a weird line, and no clear grid.
If you use a pixel art export node in ComfyUI that won’t be a problem. There’s a whole guide about it here:
https://inzaniak.github.io/blog/articles/the-pixel-art-comfyui-workflow-guide.html
A whole song and dance to post-process a broken pixel art image into a fixed grid. I’d rather just have talent or pay a human being that will make art in the first place, thanks.
Also, the example shown would be a terrible image to use as an asset, by the way. It’s a clear example of not pixel art, rather, 2D art forced to be interpolated in a “pixel like” fashion (aka what happens if you do a few nearest neighbor passes and then a fixed grid downsampling)
Note that there’s more than one model to do pixel art and there’s pixel art LoRAs that do a decent job. There’s loads of flexibility when generating this kind of thing.
Also, you can just tell it to generate a thousand over like 10 minutes and pick the best one and use that as a base to improve upon. AI is just a single tool in the workflow.
I also want to point out that not everyone can just pay someone. Don’t be paternalistic: If people want to use AI in their workflow for any reason that’s their concern. To angrily throw your hands in the air and say, “I’m not touching it because AI!” is like giving free money to the big publishers.
You’re setting a completely unnecessary high bar, “you must be this rich to ride.”
I’m not touching it because AI. Thanks.
The person above you is wrong, while a generalist model will struggle to make valid pixel art, either a specially trained model or one with elements to force a specific structure could make generative pixel art.
This seems like a valid example - https://pixel-art.ai/