I uploaded two pixel animations that don't seem to get approval: post #3035655 post #3037670
Both have the message: "It has been reviewed by 1 approver. 1 believe it doesn't meet the quality standards. Messages: Resolution."

To fix this I need to know what the one word message "Resolution" means. Possible interpretations:

• The absolute dimentions are to small. They are 368x160. According to the guidelines: "Anything below 200px in either direction is likely to get deleted." This is my best guess but the word "likely" throws me off.
• The number of pixels before scaling is too low. Nearest neighbour upscaling with integer scaling factor is allowed for pixel art though.
• The chosen art style itself is seen as too low res by the approver
• Something else I didn't think of

If reason 1 is the issue I could just render new versions with a bigger scaling factor.
If reason 2 is the issue what would be an appropriate resolution?
If reason 3 is the issue too bad, I guess.

I just learned in topic #31343 that image replacements are a thing. Would that be an option here to save the comments, favs, votings from disappearing?

You can read the uploading guidelines for more info on what's good to upload and what's bad, otherwise I can't really chip in. Try uploading images with a natural (or, non-upscaled) resolution of greater than 200p in either direction, since the opposite is considered "bad to upload" in the linked page.

siral_exan said:
You can read the uploading guidelines for more info on what's good to upload and what's bad, otherwise I can't really chip in. Try uploading images with a natural (or, non-upscaled) resolution of greater than 200p in either direction, since the opposite is considered "bad to upload" in the linked page.

Thank you for taking your time to reply but what you write is basically what I already mentioned in my original post. I read the guidelines and the uploads in question don't actually violate those. The 200 px minimum is not a hard limit and the guideline doesn't specify if it refers to the upscaled or the non-upscaled dimentions of pixel art. The approver's message isn't even clear if the 200 px are the problem here. That's why I need clarification on what the actual problem is before I waste time (and tank my upload limit in the process) with trial and error in an attempt to get my stuff approved.

The more you "have to" upscale the image, the worse it comes across. Your lizard(?) is a mere 16x10 pixels large. Even post #2993266 is 18x25, keeping above 16 in either dimension, though that one could have just as easily been left to slip beyond the 30 days. By comparison, post #2956472 has a Ralsei sprite which is 34x36, if you don't count the outline, and post #2953349 has a Ralsei sprite at 26x43. A 32x32 square would contain 1024 pixels, and while the latter size falls under 32 in width, it still surpasses 1024 pixels and has "just enough detail to have a face". I'd personally put that as the minimum qualifier.

furrin_gok said:
The more you "have to" upscale the image, the worse it comes across. Your lizard(?) is a mere 16x10 pixels large. Even post #2993266 is 18x25, keeping above 16 in either dimension, though that one could have just as easily been left to slip beyond the 30 days. By comparison, post #2956472 has a Ralsei sprite which is 34x36, if you don't count the outline, and post #2953349 has a Ralsei sprite at 26x43. A 32x32 square would contain 1024 pixels, and while the latter size falls under 32 in width, it still surpasses 1024 pixels and has "just enough detail to have a face". I'd personally put that as the minimum qualifier.

So you say the particular style choice is too low res? That's a bit like rejecting a monochrome image for too little color...
"just enough detail to have a face" - Is that an unwritten rule? I wish the guidelines would be clearer or at least an approver would give their opinion on the matter.

lord_ocean said:
So you say the particular style choice is too low res? That's a bit like rejecting a monochrome image for too little color...
"just enough detail to have a face" - Is that an unwritten rule? I wish the guidelines would be clearer or at least an approver would give their opinion on the matter.

You can fit a lot of detail into a monochrome image. You can't fit a lot into 200 pixels. That's not about style, it's about size. Upscaling doesn't change the fact that you still had a very limited number of pixels available.

lord_ocean said:
So you say the particular style choice is too low res? That's a bit like rejecting a monochrome image for too little color...

If an image had so little color and contrast that it was hard to make out enough detail to see what it was, it could be deleted for being too low quality. In this case, the image as it is is pretty low res, just barely technically being above the minimum image size. But adding that the original is even smaller and blown up several factors just to meet that minimum size causes it to look like an undetailed mass of pixels.

furrin_gok said:
[...] You can't fit a lot [of detail] into 200 pixels. [...]

I guess not everyone seems to be as interested in convincing motion as I am. Anyway, I see no point in arguing over the validity of the chosen style here.

Thanks for your input. The consensus seems to be that the minimalistic pixel art is considert to be too minimalistic. That's a shame, there was so much positive feedback. Folks really seemed to like the squeaky animation in particular.

Have a nice weekend, chrismas and a new year!