The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: what, is your pixelized photo coming from the 400px one? Why?

(See in situ)

Joη's picture

what, is your pixelized photo coming from the 400px one? Why?

If you agree the original was 1200x1600, and even link to it, why would you take the "pixelized image" from anything smaller than that? It looks like you took it from something 400px wide.

Enlarging the 1200x1600 one would look like the left, before photoshop applies its enlargement aliasing:

the right looks like it was taken from a smaller, altered photo, which wouldn't make sense if the goal was detail.

On the phone was likely a raw source image, to which the jpeg compression algorithm was not applied, which is why the characteristic jpeg artifacts are not around "" photo close up, but are on my version, which comes from your original, which was uploaded online (and compressed at least once, likely repeatedly).

It's not a far stretch to apply some image algorithms to make the 1600px one into the patched-zombie looking zoom in; photoshop would just smooth everything out.

It's also disingenuous to say that a photo enlarged suddenly "gains" 10.1 megapixels. It's just enlarged.

Same image, same data.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?