Jump to content

Talk:Pixel-art scaling algorithms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.65.1.1 (talk) at 17:24, 11 July 2011 (Sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

License

Since Kreed released the source code under the GNU General Public License, it is freely available to anyone wishing to utilize it in an open source project.

I wonder if this is slightly misleading. The GPL doesn't apply to the algorithm itself (that is, you don't have to GPL your source code just because you use 2xSaI). The only thing that could restrict that is a patent, and it's not patented. Though of course you'd have to GPL your source code if you use a significant portion of Kreed's actual code in your own code. Should this be noted in the article, or would this be too obvious to most people to mention? - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True. I've added the sentence "Developers wishing to use it in a non-open source project would be required to rewrite the algorithm without using any of Kreed's existing code." This should make things more clear. However, I've looked at the code - basically the only thing about GPL is the website which says "2xSaI is free under GPL". It never mentions the license by its full name, or anywhere in the code. So unfortunately for Kreed, it's probably not legally GPL (The GPL actually requires that the full text of the GPL is distributed with the program - this text does not appear anywhere). —EatMyShortz 11:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the source code comes with the GPL in a file called license.txt. And even if the notice is incorrectly written, the program is still under the GPL, unless it was based on someone else's work before Kreed got to it (in which case it's a copyright violation anyway). A release under a license can be legally valid even if it doesn't comply with the license itself, and only the copyright holder can enforce the terms of a license. NeonMerlin 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Blimey, this "no sources" hysteria that ravages WP is getting out of hand. Sure, there are few references in this article, but what do you expect? It documents open algorithms used primarily in game emulators. What sources are there to quote? Removed the unsourced template and inserted hope for instilling reason within the gung-ho source madmen. Miqademus 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official policy on wikipedia that pretty much every nontrivial assertion must be verifable, because what kind of encyclopedia would it be, otherwise? If you're adding stuff that is not published anywhere, how do we know it's not a lie?74.136.204.1 08:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The algorithms work.(tho' i didn't test them) I guess information around it could be wrong. But i guess sometimes sources would be seen as 'not notable', but maybe they should be used anyway, because stuff happens in 'not notable'.82.169.255.79 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


quick note: research on the pixel

More pictures?

If there was ever an article that cried out for pictures, this has to be it - a simple comparison of the various algorithms would be nice, if anyone can think of an easy way to produce one without relying on screenshots of copyrighted software. 81.86.133.45 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should create a test case like [1] and run it through every mentioned algorithm for comparison purposes. — Omegatron 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A noob like me doesn't understand anything of what's written in the article, so without pictures this article is useless for people like me... 77.47.102.19 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have generated a Scale2x images with a code written by me in VB6. This is the result images : [2]. But I have a question...if the source images is 384x192pixel, why the 3x image have the same resolution?I don't understand... --KymyA (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source image is not 384x192, that is an image magnified 3 times using nearest-neighbour filtering. The original image would be 128x64 pixels. -- Sander (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More explanations

I think the explanations for EPX/Scale/Mame/Eagle are very nice. Could someone please make explanations for 2xSaI superSaI and HQX?

Veritaba (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a scaling algorithm that works well on anti-aliased images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.67.139 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kopf and Lischinski's spline-based algorithm?

Should there be something about Kopf and Lischinski's spline-based algorithm here? See http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kopf/pixelart/index.html -- Resuna (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]