Talk:2332: Cursed Chair

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

why so pixelated? 23:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) xkcd addict #40571

It is very pixelated, isn't it?
ProphetZarquon (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping there was some kind of extra joke there, but I can't find it. --Draco18s (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad someone put the 'pixelated' image as a postscript, since my last visit here, as the first time I read the above about it, it seems it was already fixed.
And, though I'd need to check on a desktop, it looks like the unaliased image might have been saved in two-tone (1-bit) colourspace pallette in that version, perhaps in a misclick error when intending to save as greyscale... 17:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if he shops at IKEA he'd try to read one of the names and accidentally summon a demon. DanielLC (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he's summoned a BLECKBERGET, or a HATTEFJÄLL.
ProphetZarquon (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'd feel safe talking to White Hat without social distancing or face masks. Orion205 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that'd ever be sufficient. Yet more evidence that mundane things become what Beret Guy (not White Hat, at least I think canonically not the same) thinks they should become. I bet the chair was normal, and the shop it came from was normal, 'normally' closed for the duration. Now the chair is cursed and the shop's owner now finds they are in charge of an establishment that is doomed (or free?) to wander time and space... 17:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This comic's alt-text wins "The Deepest Indirect References" award for sure. Cellocgw (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


"extremely very pixelated with no aliasing" should be "extremely very pixelated with no anti-aliasing"

In the original pic, I can see the aliasing effect and the ziggurat steps it creates just fine. Anti-aliasing is the thing that removes the aliasing ("pixelation") effect.

Kurkosdr (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You just snuck that in, while I was pondering my guess about that whole issue in (two more levels of) reply to the top Talk comment. I wouldn't consider it pixelisation if the pixels were the same size all over (for a given resolution) and also not deliberately averaged out so blocks of n*n were obfuscated the same as the best available mean of that block. Randall doubtlessly downscales from his original art (at least from the x2 version of the image - if not a huger, normally unplublished, original) but normally the greyscale in 1*1 blocks makes it not 'look pixelated'. This time it was perhaps monochrome in the first conversion which 'aliased' it compared to how it should be.
(Most of the xkcd .png files, last time I checked, are greyscale. There are the occasional RGB, on at least one occasion with an (unused?) Alpha channel, and I've seen an Indexed pallette (blogofractal, IIRC, so maybe similar ones that have minimal but not monochrome/monoshaded colour spaces are that too). If reduced to a single bitplane or wrongly Indexed to black+white instead of all the basic-greys, I think that was the easy to explain blunder...) ((There are also .gifs, etc, but those usually for good reason, such as animation frames.)) 18:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)