3 ms·
I like the algorithm, but the hq4x seems to produce better fine shapes such as eyes and skeleton bones (albeit in bitmap form) - it would be interesting to see
by CognitiveLens 15y ago
I like the algorithm, but the hq4x seems to produce better fine shapes such as eyes and skeleton bones (albeit in bitmap form) - it would be interesting to see some sort of hybrid algorithm taking the best features of both to produce a vector output.
- mambodog 15y agoI feel like hq4x is probably a better choice for upscaling videogames, as it feels like it better maintains the original 'intent' of the art, which was, after all, designed with low-res in mind. The Microsoft algorithm, on the other hand, seems like it would be really useful for recovering graphics that have been downsampled algorithmically (as opposed to graphics originally drawn at low resolutions).
- imurray 15y agoExcept that the doom example in the paper (figure 11) shows that down-sampled images aren't recovered well. The posted work is designed for pixel art.
- nikhilgk 15y agoThis is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. [hq4x](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hqx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hqx) is meant to magnify by a factor of 4. The comparison images use it for 16x magnification. Would be interesting to run this algorithm after magnifying it with hqx.