Warp wrote:

>   The problem with method 2 is that it's in practice filtering the image,
> which can enhance its visual quality and is thus post-processing.


   Sure? I've tried it, and I can't get "much better" results *only* 
resizing a 10 times bigger image (with The Gimp), than using +a0.0. The 
only image where I've seen *really* better results was the one posted by 
Kari, where he admits to have used "something more" than a pure resizing 
(still, I can't get such good results even using the gaussian blur on 
"The Gimp"... he surely cheated even more! ;).

 
>   There wouldn't be a problem with method 2 if post-processing was not against
> the spirit of the competition. IMO it's such a big filtering process that it
> does not fit inside the rules.


   No, IMHO, this is not the spirit of the rule about postprocesing. I 
think it tries to avoid mainly someone "adding" extra features to the 
rendering, that is, adding "foregein pixels" (pasting figures or 
objects, adding lens flares/sparkles/glow/etc..). And a "resize", even 
with filters, only plays with rendered pixels.

   Anyhow, the line is very difficult to place... in this case, I think 
it is a harmful postprocesing. A bad image is a bad image even with the 
most fine definition of details (perhaps even worse!). A good image is 
still good with the most poor antialiasing.

   For me, this is the typical "let the judges decide..." :)

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org/
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia

Post a reply to this message