|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |