AVID:Requests for Comment/Upscaling images: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{archive top|Closing |
{{archive top|Closing with the consensus of '''forbidding upscaling''', with an oppose vote majority. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 12:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)}} |
||
I have seen one user complain about another updating uploads that are upscaled versions of the previous ones. The question with this is whether or not to allow upscaling on the site? On one hand, they do increase the quality of small sizes but at the same time lose the small details within them. |
I have seen one user complain about another updating uploads that are upscaled versions of the previous ones. The question with this is whether or not to allow upscaling on the site? On one hand, they do increase the quality of small sizes but at the same time lose the small details within them. |
||
Revision as of 02:22, 2 January 2023
The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have seen one user complain about another updating uploads that are upscaled versions of the previous ones. The question with this is whether or not to allow upscaling on the site? On one hand, they do increase the quality of small sizes but at the same time lose the small details within them.
So, the format of this RfC will be different from the others, considering I am not sure whether to speak in favor or against them, but still revolves around gathering community consensus on a specific idea. Camenati (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Allow upscaling
Big yes from me, so long as it is for active preservation rather than for the sake of upscaling. 
(name change coming soon) 05:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Support We need it for quality. 
(• USER TALK! •) 12:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Forbid upscaling
Oppose While it may indeed increase the quality, it doesn't look great most of the time and, in general, feels inauthentic. Metronome (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't agree with this upscaling as it either just blows pixels up and creates images that are too big for the server in the long run, or if it were interpolating, would make a rendition that trys to emulate the image into a higher scale. It is somewhat a problem in the cases of poor quality logo captures or sources, and I don't think this should be allowed. E.J. 12.25.2022 9:53 Pm.
- Oppose. Upscaling an image, to me, is a cheap way of having a "higher quality" version of an image. Say I wanted to upload a 4K version of the Paramount logo, I'd much rather capture it from a 4K Blu-ray than upscale a DVD of it. Dominicmgm (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per everybody else.
· Talk · Edits 04:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC) - Oppose nope EsaïeGregoryPrickett (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 14:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I concur that upscaling images is a bad idea, but some sources (like streaming) may have been upscaled to begin with. Upscaling on the originating end should not fall under this policy. Thatvhstapeguy (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't want the original source to be ruined. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose No, because I rather not have my captures be upscaled and have them exactly as they were. --Lorcan Wooster (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Unsure
Abstain Both sides are making good points 
(The Third Place) 16:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
