Talk:Image scaling

Computer graphics Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Computing Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Overly casual language

This image shows the annoying effect that pixels of the original image are now squares

Not really very formal is it? 138.243.129.4 11:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not currently an issue. yoyo (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image reduction

This article (and the linked articles) seem entirely focussed on Image enlargement. It would be good if reduction, and the effect of differing scaling routines on image quality were discussed. Particularly with regard to preservation of finer detail.

With multi-megapixel cameras ubiquitous these days, I find I'm scaling images down for web publishing and emailing a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyTarget (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image reduction is important too! However, the old 'subsampling' page was hardly expansive. Unfortunately I'm searching for the knowledge, not myself an expert, and not myself therefore in a position to improve this content. Hopefully others will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.109.53.3 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that the "downsampling" link in this article links to an article relating to signal processing, not image scaling. The downsampling article itself contains a disambiguation link to the article "subsampling", which in itself turns out to be a disambiguation page, which, on the topic of image subsampling, points back to this article. --Dolda2000 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: merge from Subsampling

This other article about image scaling should be merged here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. A general cleanup on image scaling articles is needed, so I added a few more merge proposals. --Berland (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Resampling is included in the merge, it should be the main article title, since it's more general than image scaling. It might be best to leave a separate article on image scaling, as there's a ton of specific techniques for images, and leave the more general resampling separate. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only the bitmap part of Resampling I possibly want merged. But this is not my main field, so if both Resampling (bitmap) and Image scaling are separate enough for their own articles, it is fine by me. --Berland (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right; most of that article should be merged; what's left may need to merge somewhere else. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly that the image scaling articles should be re-arranged.

An important distinction is between continuous tone images and pixel art, as the goals and techniques are very different. Not sure which articles which information should go in though.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article here (image scaling) only talks about digital images, while I guess that the title can refer to the analog domain as well. So from that image scaling may be the more general and maybe Resampling (bitmap) the more specific article and we should move the detailed descriptions of the digital algorithms and stuff over there - and add something about analog stuff here, of course.--Dvaer (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Merge From Bilinear interpolation section on applications to image processing

I believe that the Bilinear interpolation article section on "Applications to Image Processing" should not be merged to the Image scaling article because bilinear interpolation is used in many more image processing operations than just scaling. I, myself, am using it for re-sampling an image from Cartesian to polar coordinates. Others use it for re-sampling for perspective projection or inverse projection in image registration or texture mapping. I have also seen it used where one has a sparse grid of data points and one wishes to interpolate intermediate values -- for example, when one has a coarse grid of optical flow vectors in an image and wishes to interpolate the vector in-between to predict the motion of a pixel whose flow was not measured, one can use a bilinear interpolant for that velocity pair. This can happen in coarse-to fine algorithms like some versions of the Lucas-Kanade optical flow algorithm. Other coarse-to fine algorithms can require interpolation and use bilinear interpolants as well.

Because of this, bilinear interpolation's applications to image processing section cannot be properly merged into Image Scaling, or even image resampling.

A better proposal might be to have an article on applications of interpolation to image processing and list bilinear (along with bicubic, Gaussian, truncated sinc, etc., etc.) as different methods used, preferably with comments on the tradeoffs.

BrotherE (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – these are very good points, and I’ll work them into relevant articles.

To summarize:

Resampling is not always scaling – it can also be a change of coordinate system (Cartesian to polar);
“Resampling” tends to imply “changing a uniform sampling rate”, but it can also be used in interpolation from sparse data, as you mention.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This article is detailing a very different beast. I makes perfect sense to stay in its own page. — Kieff | Talk 11:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom...now enhance...

Do you think this article should say something about the "zoom and enhance" thing seen in CSI, etc.? Yes, I know it's impossible in real life, but lots of wiki articles have an "in popular culture" section. 'FL a RN'(talk) 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been renamed

I noticed that this article has been moved from Pixel art scaling algorithms to Image scaling. The more general name needs to touch on algorithms intended for continuous tone images such as photographs and high-quality CGI, such as linear, cubic, and sinc resampling. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which is the best?

I want to use one of them in my project. Which is the best? As for me Hqx is the better choice. Your arguments? 178.49.101.206 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Max[reply]

Depends on what your project is. Hqx is very processor intensive (compared to the others), so if you are working on something for a mobile device I would shy away from it. (Screen size would diminish the benefit, while limited processor and battery would amplify the downside). If neither of these are constraints, I would lean toward Hqx, so long as whatever you filtering isn't one of the several things Hqx does a poor job of scaling (You'll see it if you encounter it.) If you're not doing an emulator, I'd say you are better off hand-scaling your graphics though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.85.79 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example Video

The source image used has poorly rendered text, which makes it hard to tell whether or not the output is acceptable or not. Also, the excessive fades make it nearly impossible to tell the difference between each algorithm. Also, algorithm is spelled incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.85.79 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split tag

As stated at the top of this page, the section to be split off was in fact recently merged into this article. This would seem to be the correct place for it. The lede says that the article is about digital images, so it is not as if e.g. analogue scaling has been "unfairly" sidelined. The article may well need to be improved, but it does not need to be split. Op47 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor choice example image

The image containing the word "Wiki" already has antialiased edges, which makes it perhaps not as clear as possible where the antialiasing in the example output images comes from. The nearest-neighbour interpolated image, in particular, shows the antialiased edge, but it's really just showing the intermediate-valued pixels that are already in the original. Bernd Jendrissek (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super 2xSaI and Super Eagle

Which of the sentences extracted from the same paragraph is correct? -> Super Eagle [...] is similar to the 2×SaI engine, but does more blending -> Super 2×SaI [...] blends more than the Super Eagle engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.160.227 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]