3 ms·
Yeah -- pixels are little squares, since a pixel appears as a little square on your display. If displays did the "correct" thing and interpolated the pixels us
by panic 9y ago
Yeah -- pixels are little squares, since a pixel appears as a little square on your display. If displays did the "correct" thing and interpolated the pixels using a band-limited signal, it wouldn't look good at all. The low sample rate compared to the resolution of human vision means you'd see ringing artifacts on every sharp edge.
If you want to do the correct thing from a signal processing perspective, you should upsample your images with a square-pixel filter until the Nyquist frequency is below the limit of human vision first. Then you can do your operations on the pixels as point samples before downsampling again with a square-pixel filter.
- jacobolus 9y agoOn your display a pixel appears as a narrow sorta-rectangle, with a bit of black space above and below, and a whole bunch of empty space to the left and right (populated with 2 other pixels of other primary colors). But properly doing antialiasing for the precise geometry of sub pixels is going to be a big pain in the butt, and will be device specific and break down hard when you get to a device that uses a different pixel geometry, or when someone applies intermediate processing to your image before display. Not to mention, if you really want to get it exactly right, you’ll need to take into account the viewer’s visual acuity, the viewing distance, and the precise color characteristics of the display and surrounding environment.