Talk:Pixel-art scaling algorithms

message: :Since Kreed released the source code under the GNU General Public License, it is freely available to anyone wishing to utilize it in an open source project.
I wonder if this is slightly misleading. The GPL doesn't apply to the algorithm itself (that is, you don't have to GPL your source code just because you use 2xSaI). The only thing that could restrict that is a patent, and it's not patented. Though of course you'd have to GPL your source code if you use a significant portion of Kreed's actual code in your own code. Should this be noted in the article, or would this be too obvious to most people to mention? - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: Blimey, this "no sources" hysteria that ravages WP is getting out of hand. Sure, there are few references in this article, but what do you expect? It documents open algorithms used primarily in game emulators. What sources are there to quote? Removed the unsourced template and inserted hope for instilling reason within the gung-ho source madmen. Miqademus 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an official policy on wikipedia that pretty much every nontrivial assertion must be verifable, because what kind of encyclopedia would it be, otherwise?  If you're adding stuff that is not published anywhere, how do we know it's not a lie?74.136.204.1 08:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The algorithms work.(tho' i didn't test them) I guess information around it could be wrong. But i guess sometimes sources would be seen as 'not notable', but maybe they should be used anyway, because stuff happens in 'not notable'.82.169.255.79 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: If there was ever an article that cried out for pictures, this has to be it - a simple comparison of the various algorithms would be nice, if anyone can think of an easy way to produce one without relying on screenshots of copyrighted software. 81.86.133.45 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source image is not 384x192, that is an image magnified 3 times using nearest-neighbour filtering. The original image would be 128x64 pixels. -- Sander (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pictures? 

message: I think the explanations for EPX/Scale/Mame/Eagle are very nice. Could someone please make explanations for 2xSaI superSaI and HQX?
Veritaba (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More explanations 

message: Should there be something about Kopf and Lischinski's spline-based algorithm here? See http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kopf/pixelart/index.html -- Resuna (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kopf and Lischinski's spline-based algorithm? 

message: I've now extracted this material from the image scaling article, as it had completely overwhelmed the rest of that article, making it impossible to improve it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-merged from [[image scaling]] 

message: Description is pasted from the waifu2x website (copyvio?). There's a lot more that could be written about this extremely useful piece of software by experts who've had a chance to study it properly. In my experience (yeah, I know it's OR, so I won't add it to the article) the upscaling process works best with clean source images with low grain. Some jpeg artifacts may be retained and upscaled; in some cases these can be reduced post-processing using smoothing effects in conventional image editors, although this will also soften the image somewhat. Although originally designed for 2-dimensional artwork the software also produces very good results with CG art, with some examples retaining good quality after 4x expansion. Although the software cannot of course add detail that wasn't in the original image, it does retain most, if not all, of the original detail at higher scales. Now could somebody confirm all that and write a learned paper online so it can be quoted here?! Lee M (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  waifu2x 

message: I can't find it anywhere in this article. There's a working description of the actual algorithm for Advmame2x, Eagle, and for a couple others. However it's missing working descriptions for the algorithms 2xSai, SuperEagle, Super2xSai, and many others. Benhut1 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the actual working description of 2xSai, SuperEagle, and Super2xSai? 

message: If you read it, it says both that super 2xSaI blends more than Super Eagle, and also that Super Eagle blends more than Super 2xSaI, about a sentence apart. -- It makes no sense and needs to be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.81.237 (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the "Super 2×SaI and Super Eagle" section 

message: I created this image - can I add it to the page? Also please check it's correct. Thanks. Drummyfish (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I add this image?