4 ms·
It just blurs out the details. I'd rather have a sharp image with artifacts.
by axiolite 6mo ago
It just blurs out the details. I'd rather have a sharp image with artifacts.
- pxndxx 6mo agoThe details were destroyed long ago by the poor compression, you aren't getting them back either way.
- axiolite 6mo agoYou're talking utter nonsense. Get a picture of grass, save it as a JPEG at 15% quality... It still looks like grass. Then run it through jpeg2png... The output looks like a green smear. You might not even be able to tell that it's supposed to be grass. jpeg2png just blurs the hell out of images. Here's a side-by-side: https://ibb.co/99C0F34d https://ibb.co/99C0F34d
- crazygringo 6mo agoWhy? You're not seeing the actual details either way. The blurred version feels honest -- it's not showing you anything more than what has been encoded. The sharp image feels confusing -- it's showing you a ton of detail that is totally wrong. "Detail" that wasn't in the original, but is just artifacts. Why would you prefer distracting artifacts over a blurred version?
- axiolite 6mo agoThe details are quite real, and they make the image far more comprehensible. Get a picture of grass, save it as a JPEG at 15% quality... It still looks like grass. Then run it through jpeg2png... The output looks like a green smear. You might not even be able to tell that it's supposed to be grass. jpeg2png just blurs the hell out of images. Here's a side-by-side: https://ibb.co/99C0F34d https://ibb.co/99C0F34d