@NoHatCoder We had to set it to bilinear because cubic was _awful_ - super ringy and bad on the edges.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori You need some form of supersampling for heavy downscaling, sampling method doesn't matter much, as long as you do enough samples.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoHatCoder
@cmuratori I can't believe that Photoshop hasn't got this feature.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoHatCoder
@NoHatCoder Not sure what you mean by "supersampling" in this case?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Lots of samples per output pixel. There is a wealth of different specific methods, all of them should produce better results.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoHatCoder
@NoHatCoder That doesn't really make any sense? You know exactly all the pixels that are in the original image. You don't need to sample.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@NoHatCoder Any "dense sampling" of the image can still be trivially reduced to a weighted sum of the covered pixels.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Yes, but I'd still call it a sampling pattern. In any case, what actually happens when you choose "bilinear" is that it takes1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoHatCoder
@cmuratori one weighted sample of 4 pixels for every output pixel, leaving most of the original image completely untouched.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoHatCoder
@NoHatCoder No, nobody does that, not even Photoshop :)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@NoHatCoder Bilinear just means box filter, and it's a separable filter, so it is just the weighted sum of all the pixels in the preimage.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.