3 ms·

Too bad he doesn't show examples of with and without his method applied.

• dahart 8y ago
  What are you looking at? I see examples with and without: the first 6 pictures in the article. Are you referring to the anisotropic examples at the end of the article?
  • kowdermeister 8y ago
    Maybe I'm struggling with reading comprehension but it's not clear which is the one he made. Also the anisotropic pictures would be really nice to see with and without the algo applied.
    • casion 8y ago
      You are not the only one. I can’t tell either.
    • dahart 8y ago
      He didn’t call it out clearly; you have a good point. I think it did take me a second to realize the 3rd example was the new better method. The main clue is the text, where the first two are negative (“aliasing from hell” and “blurry mess”) and the third one is positive (“smooth and sharp”). It certainly could have used a description that says “here’s my new method”. It wouldn’t hurt to show the anisotropic pics against the other two, but FWIW, the story is more complicated since he mixed in mip-mapping for that example. He’d have to mix mip-mapping with nearest neighbor and bilinear as well, which would look sorta weird, take extra work, and possibly confuse his main point a little rather than clarify. It wouldn’t be much more illustrative than the first set of examples either. So, I’m just guessing, but I can see reasons why he might have chosen to skip the comparison.