Jaime Vives <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>    Hmmm... I think the problem is not "resizing". Altough today paint 
> programs can resize much better, only resizing doesn't gives so good 
> results, at least not much better than +a0.0. The "artifact" or "moire" 
> removing step is done with the previous gaussian filter, and *this is* 
> postprocesing, not the resizing. IMHO, resizing only must be still 
> allowed, but perhaps has not much sense today, as there are no 
> resolution limits for the image (I think this rule was created to allow 
> people to fit the maximum resolution allowed at that time).

  The problem with resizing an image smaller is that there are basically two
ways of doing it (from the point of view of the program):
  1. Make the image smaller by just dropping out pixel rows and columns
appropriately.
  2. Make the image smaller by calculating (weighted) averages of pixel
rows and columns.

  The problem with method 1 is aliasing.
  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.

  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.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message