3 ms·
I agreed with you, but then I realized they're representing hqx deceptively. There was a video posted here, with them rendered at the same resolution side by s
by scott_karana 13y ago
I agreed with you, but then I realized they're representing hqx deceptively.
There was a video posted here, with them rendered at the same resolution side by side.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7307975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7307975
It's really a matter of taste in this video.
- lloeki 13y agoI took great care to compare 4x, only considering 16x as a zoom, especially since "zoomed in", it blows out the details too much so you lose the global picture. Still, 16x means HiDPI will make it looks crisp as hell for the same physical size. As for the video, the dent in Mario's cap outline and the similar angles in the background outlines ruins hq4x for me, while I could live with the "200"/"400" lettering (which looks better on hq4x) because it disappears quickly (but does not bode well for other cases where text appears)
- corysama 13y ago> they're representing hqx deceptively. A big difference in the techniques is that hq4x is a fix-rate upscaling, whereas Microsoft's can handle arbitrary target resolutions. At the same rez, they are pretty equivalent. But, MS has the option to go higher. HQ8x has not yet been developed. I doubt that HQ(arbitrary)x is possible without completely changing the algorithm.
- lloeki 13y agoNot just higher, but non integer/power of two.
- scott_karana 13y agoI agree, that's huge advantage. That's why I said it was a deceptive representation, but not an invalid one.