FA+
Shop
772
Views
Views
100
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Robot / Android / Cyborg
Size 1600 x 1200
File Size 18.8 kB
Report this content
★
More from Suule
Listed in Folders
It is the business of future to be dangerous
Uncertain future brought you by Michael Moorcock
1st Place @ Mountainbytes 2025
1st Place @ Mountainbytes 2025
Category Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Robot / Android / Cyborg
Size 1600 x 1200px
File Size 18.8 kB
Listed in Folders
This is a really nice picture! What program did you use to make it? Also, hello! I'm Gio, by the way. I'm also a pixel artist. My tool of choice is the Windows XP version of Microsoft Paint. Here is my most recent work: https://www.furaffinity.net/view/63395747/ .
I noticed that the size of the pixels in this picture are 6 pixels tall by 5 pixels wide (I copied the picture and opened it in Microsoft Paint [the Windows XP version] to look at it up close). So, I wanted to see if I could correct the pixels to be perfect squares, and I did. Here's how I did it:
I thought about the size of the pixels in this picture (5x6), and how I would convert the short side widthwise (5) to match the height of the pixel (6), and realized that 6 is 120% of 5, as 1 is 20% of 5, and 5 is 100%, so adding 1 (20% of 5) to 5 (100%) to equal 6 (120% of 5) is how I came up with 120%.
So, I initially resized the picture (in Microsoft Paint, the Windows XP version) without resizing the canvas in Stretch and Skew (under Image) horizontally to 120%, which changed the width of the picture from 1600 pixels wide to 1920 pixels wide.
It worked, but the picture was "damaged" - Microsoft Paint (in the Windows XP version I was using, as well as up to the present version in Windows 11) has a glitch where when you resize an image (or part of said image) larger than the current canvas size, it anti-aliases (blurs) the image by adding translucent pixels of half brightness between the brighter color and the darker colors that surround the brighter color to create said blur). So I undid the resize (after checking Attributes under Image to get the new width of the canvas, which was now 1920 pixels wide, from the previous 1600 pixels wide), copied the picture, and then cut it. I then re-pasted the picture back in and resized the width of the picture to 120% (in Horizontal, under Stretch, in Stretch and Skew, under Image), to increase the width of the picture to 1920 pixels from 1600 pixels wide. The result is that the pixels are now perfectly square at 6 pixels wide by 6 pixels tall - with no anti-aliasing since I had the picture selected when resizing it.
With the picture still selected (I didn't deselect it after resizing it), I went back to Stretch and Skew, under Image, and set both the Horizontal and Vertical (under Stretch) to 50%, which reduced the picture from 1920x1200 pixels (6 pixels wide by 6 pixels tall per pixel) to 960x600 pixels (3 pixels wide by 3 pixels tall per pixel), and then with the picture still selected, very carefully dragged the lower right corner of the picture (while holding the right mouse button the entire time) to manually resize the picture to 33% (or 1/3rd), as trying to do the same in Stretch and Skew, under Image, by setting the both the Horizontal and Vertical under [Stretch]) to 33% didn't work correctly to resize the picture correctly and made the picture slightly smaller than 320x200 pixels - forcing me to perform the manual override I just described to get the proper results, which reduced the picture from 960x600 pixels (3 pixels wide by 3 pixels tall per pixel) to 320x200 pixels, making each pixel 1 wide by 1 pixel tall. I then resized the canvas to match the new resolution by changing Width to 320 and Height to 200 in Attributes under Image .
The result is a perfect conversion from the original off-square resolution format to perfectly square pixels at 1/6th the resolution (after being made perfectly square first).
Yes, I'm a nerd; I just couldn't resist a good challenge.
Maybe, though, this information could be useful in the future, if you ever needed it.
- Gio
Wednesday, December 24th, 2025
8:35 P.M. Central Standard Time (CST)
I noticed that the size of the pixels in this picture are 6 pixels tall by 5 pixels wide (I copied the picture and opened it in Microsoft Paint [the Windows XP version] to look at it up close). So, I wanted to see if I could correct the pixels to be perfect squares, and I did. Here's how I did it:
I thought about the size of the pixels in this picture (5x6), and how I would convert the short side widthwise (5) to match the height of the pixel (6), and realized that 6 is 120% of 5, as 1 is 20% of 5, and 5 is 100%, so adding 1 (20% of 5) to 5 (100%) to equal 6 (120% of 5) is how I came up with 120%.
So, I initially resized the picture (in Microsoft Paint, the Windows XP version) without resizing the canvas in Stretch and Skew (under Image) horizontally to 120%, which changed the width of the picture from 1600 pixels wide to 1920 pixels wide.
It worked, but the picture was "damaged" - Microsoft Paint (in the Windows XP version I was using, as well as up to the present version in Windows 11) has a glitch where when you resize an image (or part of said image) larger than the current canvas size, it anti-aliases (blurs) the image by adding translucent pixels of half brightness between the brighter color and the darker colors that surround the brighter color to create said blur). So I undid the resize (after checking Attributes under Image to get the new width of the canvas, which was now 1920 pixels wide, from the previous 1600 pixels wide), copied the picture, and then cut it. I then re-pasted the picture back in and resized the width of the picture to 120% (in Horizontal, under Stretch, in Stretch and Skew, under Image), to increase the width of the picture to 1920 pixels from 1600 pixels wide. The result is that the pixels are now perfectly square at 6 pixels wide by 6 pixels tall - with no anti-aliasing since I had the picture selected when resizing it.
With the picture still selected (I didn't deselect it after resizing it), I went back to Stretch and Skew, under Image, and set both the Horizontal and Vertical (under Stretch) to 50%, which reduced the picture from 1920x1200 pixels (6 pixels wide by 6 pixels tall per pixel) to 960x600 pixels (3 pixels wide by 3 pixels tall per pixel), and then with the picture still selected, very carefully dragged the lower right corner of the picture (while holding the right mouse button the entire time) to manually resize the picture to 33% (or 1/3rd), as trying to do the same in Stretch and Skew, under Image, by setting the both the Horizontal and Vertical under [Stretch]) to 33% didn't work correctly to resize the picture correctly and made the picture slightly smaller than 320x200 pixels - forcing me to perform the manual override I just described to get the proper results, which reduced the picture from 960x600 pixels (3 pixels wide by 3 pixels tall per pixel) to 320x200 pixels, making each pixel 1 wide by 1 pixel tall. I then resized the canvas to match the new resolution by changing Width to 320 and Height to 200 in Attributes under Image .
The result is a perfect conversion from the original off-square resolution format to perfectly square pixels at 1/6th the resolution (after being made perfectly square first).
Yes, I'm a nerd; I just couldn't resist a good challenge.
Maybe, though, this information could be useful in the future, if you ever needed it.
- Gio
Wednesday, December 24th, 2025
8:35 P.M. Central Standard Time (CST)
I have used Aseprite.
Welll here's the problem in your approach. The pixels in this image are correct - The original EGA/VGA 320x200 were 16:9 modes projected into a 4:3 monitor, so to actually display it with an aspect correction.
I have multiplied width by 5 and height by 6 just to avoid anti-aliasing when upscaling from 200 to 240 - something that CRT handles easily by just stretching the width of the lines that it is drawing. I understand the common misconception that EGA/VGA games used a non-stretched 320x200. In reality that was wrong and many games look wrong (characters look very squished) when aspect correction is not applied. There exists a perfect 320x200 version of this image, same with my other EGA pieces, so again - all that work you've done was for nothing, sorry. I recommend checking my Demozoo - it should have a repository of images with stages and different versions for these pictures.
Welll here's the problem in your approach. The pixels in this image are correct - The original EGA/VGA 320x200 were 16:9 modes projected into a 4:3 monitor, so to actually display it with an aspect correction.
I have multiplied width by 5 and height by 6 just to avoid anti-aliasing when upscaling from 200 to 240 - something that CRT handles easily by just stretching the width of the lines that it is drawing. I understand the common misconception that EGA/VGA games used a non-stretched 320x200. In reality that was wrong and many games look wrong (characters look very squished) when aspect correction is not applied. There exists a perfect 320x200 version of this image, same with my other EGA pieces, so again - all that work you've done was for nothing, sorry. I recommend checking my Demozoo - it should have a repository of images with stages and different versions for these pictures.
You misunderstood me. I just wanted to see if I could convert (reverse-engineer) the pixels in this picture back to perfect squares (in the Windows XP version of Microsoft Paint), and I was able to do so, using the method I described in my previous comment. I did go and find your DemoZoo page and found the same picture and downloaded the folder containing the files you were talking about from the scene.org page that corresponded to your picture. I found the file that corresponds to what I did (a PNG picture file labelled DangerousFutureFinal) in said folder and opened it the Windows XP version of Microsoft Paint to see the resolution (it was 320x200 pixels). So I copied it and pasted it into the window I had open in the Windows XP version of Microsoft Paint with the version I had "corrected" and shrunk (downscaled) earlier - and they were identical.
I also found the picture that corresponds to the picture that is posted here (on FurAffinity) in the same folder (a PNG picture labelled DangerousFutureFinalAspectRatio), which is identical to said picture above, with a resolution of 1600x1200 pixels and the same 5x6 pixels.
I never said that the picture was defective, and am sorry for the confusion if that's how it came across. I should've used the word convert instead of the word correct, so that what I said in my previous comment would've made a lot more sense, instead of it sounding like I was saying something was wrong with your picture (when there is not).
Also, (And, this is just a question), why not make the viewing area of a picture 320x180 pixels (16:9 Aspect Ratio) within the same resolution of 320x240 pixels (4:3 Aspect Ratio, and assumedly also the maximum allowable displayable resolution that is shown on the screen), with upper and lower borders (of black pixels) that are 30 pixels tall?
- Gio
Thursday, December 25th, 2025
6:07 A.M. Central Standard Time (CST)
I also found the picture that corresponds to the picture that is posted here (on FurAffinity) in the same folder (a PNG picture labelled DangerousFutureFinalAspectRatio), which is identical to said picture above, with a resolution of 1600x1200 pixels and the same 5x6 pixels.
I never said that the picture was defective, and am sorry for the confusion if that's how it came across. I should've used the word convert instead of the word correct, so that what I said in my previous comment would've made a lot more sense, instead of it sounding like I was saying something was wrong with your picture (when there is not).
Also, (And, this is just a question), why not make the viewing area of a picture 320x180 pixels (16:9 Aspect Ratio) within the same resolution of 320x240 pixels (4:3 Aspect Ratio, and assumedly also the maximum allowable displayable resolution that is shown on the screen), with upper and lower borders (of black pixels) that are 30 pixels tall?
- Gio
Thursday, December 25th, 2025
6:07 A.M. Central Standard Time (CST)
Comments