You must not know any of them. I do, they exist, and they behave as described. Not every Apple user is like that (I'm certainly not, I own a MacBook Pro and I love it, but have no interest in pretty much anything else Apple makes), but those people do exist and they're vocal enough that they appear to be the majority, whether they are or not.
Your phone disconnects from the charger and runs off battery once it's charged? I'd assume, then, that it reconnects once it's not fully charged anymore (e.g. immediately)? How many charge cycles is that per hour? DERP. It keep drawing power once it's done charging the battery, to run the phone, so it isn't wasting charge cycles by discharging and recharging the battery. Do you even own a power meter?
It's not desperation, as I'm through arguing, it's an "oh, damn, I should have said this, too". The distinction matters. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, you simply are not going to convince me until you do, though. It is the one thing I've actually been trying to get out of you for what, 5 days now and I honestly don't care that much. Maybe I have backward definitions of things, I still understand the principles and can make them work, so this whole argument boils down to definitions and you simply refuse to share yours. How can I admit that your definition is right and mine is wrong when you won't tell me what yours is? Namaste.
And yet you still haven't answered the one question I've actually asked. What definition of "sharp" are you using? I can admit I'm wrong when someone actually shows me that I am. Look through my post history and you'll see that. But, when someone resorts to insults and troll tactics, as you've done here, i feed them for amusement. So, are you going to answer my actual question, finally? You do realize that the definition of "sharp" is the foundation of our argument and the only way you are going to winis to answer that question. It's the only real supporting proof your case has.
Unfortunately, I can't find the Nyquist paper online anywhere (I originally read it off microfilm a couple decades back) so the Wikipedia article (not the one you quoted, the other one I linked) is the best I can do for references.
I have to ask you though, why is it okay for you to insist that "sharp" has different definitions between digital imaging and photography, but not okay for me to insinuate that the same may be true for "blur"? Not that I was doing so, but you attacked me for it, so I have to ask. Why is that?
For reference, yes a physical AA filter, as used in photography, does blur the image. I thought I had pointed that out, but I may not have; I'm too tired of this to go back and look. Meanwhile, the definition of "blur" seems to agree with my position. I'm not redefining anything to get to this point, I'm using the textbook definition: "make or become unclear or less distinct". In digital imaging, antialiasing makes things more clear; you even said so yourself:
Your view would imply that a non-anti-aliased scene is better than an anti-aliased scene for say, an FPS where you're looking down a straight road. This is nonsense, because without that blur you're actually going to end up with a scene that looks less real - it fits your definition of sharper.
And you did so while at the same time making an incorrect assumption of my definition of "sharp". I've given you my definition, by the way; I'm still waiting on yours.
Actually, I see where the confusion may have come in... I didn't look closely enough at that PDF I linked to and thought it was the actual theorem and not some professor's ramblings about said theorem. Having gone back and looked at it again, I see my error and will attempt to find and link to the correct document.
Have you considered the possibility that it is you who is wrong? You seem unable or unwilling to answer one simple question (instead explaining your way all around the answer), which would be quite simple for your to answer if you were confident that your were correct. I'm not 100% sure I'm right, which is why I'm asking in the first place; your answer will confirm one way or the other; your lack of answer thus far seems to lean in my favor, rather than yours.
Really? The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, the definitive explanation of aliasing and antialiasing, is pretty clear on what antialiasing is, and it is not blur; it is the removal of signals of higher frequency than your target resolution (in this case, removal of details smaller than a pixel). Averaging, as is used in supersampling (described in your GeForce link), is not blur. Had you not stopped at my first (and self-admittedly horrible) resource, and actually read and understood the material that not only best describes, but actually originated, the idea of aliasing and antialiasing in digital signals, you might realize that I'm not redefining anything at all.
Speaking of redefining, can I get that definition I keep asking for?
wow... fail paragraph at the top there... Should read "Then, I spent an hour writing a well-thought-out response, clicked Preview, then closed the window. FML. Here's a quick and dirty summary of what I wrote."
I actually ended up saying fuck it and reading the rest of your wall of text... Then, I spent an hour
you're the sort of person that ended up working in a fast food joint
Again with the insults and assumptions! I worked in one for 3 years, yes. I started there, I did not end up there. Today, I run a successful creative and business development firm and remain very hands-on in all aspects of the business.
but either way you sound like your worship the profession and what it does
No, I'm not sure where you're getting that. I have an interest, but it's far from worship. In my teen years, almost 2 decades ago, I dabbled. I even developed a couple of algorithms that I simply didn't have the computing power to reasonably implement (waiting hours for an image to render on the 386 that was handed down to me isn't something I had the discipline to do back then) at the time and, now that I have plentiful resources, the one resource I'm lacking is the time to actually implement them. I have the whitepaper still (around somewhere) from the image format I developed, which natively lends itself to scaling (down without loss of sharpness, up without loss of detail, as well as a draft spec for an audio format based on similar principles. I'd like to implement them some day, when time permits, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
and if so then why aren't you aspiring to it?
Lack of resources when my interest was stronger, lack of time now that I have the resources.
if you're still skeptical of the idea that an upscale can still create a sharper scene than a lower resolution non-upscaled scene
This is why I keep asking you for your definition of "sharp" as it relates to digital imaging. As I understand it, it is the relationship between resolution and detail; if your image contains all the detail it can possibly contain at a given resolution, it is as sharp as it can be. If you have a sharp 1600x900 image and you scale it to 1920x1080, you don't magically regain the detail that was lost when it was sampled or rendered at 1600x900, you decrease the density of the existing details and, thus, the sharpness of the image. See Nyquist-Shannon. If that disagrees with your definition of "sharp", then I need to know what that definition is. Still. Which is why I keep asking.
that blurring is sometimes a good thing
Using the 1600x900 to 1920x1080 example I just gave, yes, even a simple bi-linear filter will look a damn-sight better than nearest-neighbor. Better scaling algorithms will look better still, but they won't recover detail and, therefore, will negatively impact sharpness as I understand it. From the way you talk about it, I could assume that you define "sharp" as "looks better", but I'd rather hear the definition from you directly than risk incorrectly inferring it, which is why I keep asking you to define it. We do seem to be in agreement that "blurry" beats "blocky", though (and I can get behind calling blockiness a type of blur, even; that fits my prior, loose definition of "sharp" as "the opposite of blur", as blocky images a not, as you incorrectly implied I believed, sharp).
rather than telling me I haven't explained something when I have
You've explained your definition of "sharp" quite well, I'm sure. You still haven't simply provided a concise definition, which is what I'm asking for.
and just assuming I'm wrong
If you think you've answered my question, you're very wrong.
or bad at teaching
I asked a simple question: What is your definition of "sharp"? You keep explaining around that question, rather than answering it, and I'm sure you're explained quite well and in much detail, but you still have not given the definition, so I still have no idea what you're explaining. That makes you a bad teacher.
The only mentions of blur on Wikipedia's AA Page relate to photography (near the top of the page) and an separate operation done before resampling an image (in a comparison against proper AA).
Clearly, having read and understood any factual materials on the subject, AA is, as it relates to digital signals, not a form of blur. Your link (which is very basic and dumbed-down for the graphics card consumer; a poor choice for an actual technical argument) doesn't disagree with that stance, either.
(whilst admitting you're wholly unqualified on the subject)
Admitting someone else, who works in the field, is more qualified is not the same as admitting I'm unqualified. And no, you still have not answered the one fundamental question I asked you: What is your definition of "sharp"? Answer that and we'll be good here. That's what I'm wanting to learn. Really, stopped reading the rest of your wall of text at the part I quoted, so you may well have finally done that, but if I could get just a simple, concise answer to the question you claim to have repeatedly already answered, that would be great. No explanations of how AA is blur, or (misguided) attempts to guess at my definition of blur, or insults, or insinuations that I don't want to hear your answer (when the reality seems to be that you don't want to give it), just your definition of sharp. That would be enough to get us on the same page; step one in those communication skills I mentioned earlier. Clearly, you're not saying what you think you're saying, and that's not my problem.
They hadn't finished drafting the response to public comment. It was 300-and-some pages when everyone was bitching that it hadn't been released yet. They've added a bit of content in that time; now it's 400.
Mind pointing out where I ever mentioned focus or contrast in this conversation? Flat out, I did not. I asked you to provide me with your definition of "sharpness" and you, still, at this point, have not. I'm asking you to educate me on that specific point so that I can see where you're coming from, and all you can do is tell me my point of view is wrong based on shit you keep incorrectly inferring about my point of view. I want to learn, but you are clearly incapable of teaching; you first have to understand how my understanding is wrong, and thus far everything you've told me is wrong about my understanding is just what you have inferred and not my actual understanding.
Follow?
The "sharpness" setting on most displays does work by attempting to increase the contrast between pixels, and it typically looks like shit. It's mislabeled and should be called "artificial contrast". This is not what I understand as "sharpness", as you have implied here. It also has nothing to do with focus, which is what you've previously (also incorrectly) implied my understanding of sharpness to be. If you are agreeing with me that "sharpness" is the opposite of "blur", which is what I've been trying to drag out of you, then why don't you just come out and say that? Then, your explanation that some upscaling algorithms are better at guessing than others (by your own admission, some are just simple pixel estimation; Lancsoz, for example) would have been readily accepted.
But, the fact remains, even the best algorithms guess at everything and, when they guess wrong, that is incorrect detail, which one may conflate with blur, the opposite of sharpness. Further, if you don't have time to properly render the scene at the correct resolution, you don't have time to use one of the better algorithms, either; you end up with, at best, Lancsoz, and at worst, nearest-neighbor. Where algos like HQnx and nxBRZ shine is pre-rendered rasters, where the resolution has already been determined and does not mach your output resolution; they are not useful in instances where you simple don't have time to render at your native resolution in the first place, as you likely also don't have time to perform the calculations necessary for those algorithms.
Regarding your earlier mention of AA as a type of blur, it is actually quite the opposite. The best method of Antialiasing is downscaling: rendering the image larger, then combining multiple pixels into one. For example, rendering the image at 3840x2160 and blending each 2x2 group of pixels into a single pixel. The analog in photography (since you keep bringing it up) is multiple rays of light hitting individual pixels of the camera's sensor, or hitting the same grain of the film. Yes, there is less detail than the originally-rendered image, so the displayed image will technically be less sharp, but it will be as sharp as the display allows, and much more accurate. I think we're in agreement on that accuracy point, and that AA is always preferred when possible. I'm just intending to point out how it is, in fact, the opposite of blur (which, in computer graphics, comes from interpolation or blending with n pixels with n+x pixels, where x >= 0, where downscaling is the opposite, blending n pixels to create n/x pixels; in one case, you have the same number of pixels, or more, and some blur; in the other, you have fewer, and no added blur).
I don't do this for a living, by any means, but it i something I've been exposed to for my entire life and I have a decent enough understanding of the topic to hold my own in these conversations once I've identified the points everyone in the conversation is trying to make. You need to work on your communication skills given that it took this long for you to spit out anything even closely resembling a point; that's not meant as an attack or an insult, but as friendly advice. I've been there, too.
Oh, what? Looks like I was perfectly qualified to tear you apart. How about you answer some of those questions you claim to be on to of, then? Seriously, if I'm wrong, don't just tell me I'm wrong and call me dumb, explain why I'm wrong, and tell me what's right; my eyes and mind are open, it's part of the reason I'm here. Educate me, oh great one.
Which question of mine were you answering? I don't see any supposed answers you've given that are relevant to any question I've asked, so of course I'm not satisfied with any of your answers thus far. To recap, here are the questions I've asked you:
How about you define sharpness for me, then?
Not answered.
Alternately, why don't you explain how I'm wrong, rather than just calling me dumb?
Not answered.
You remember when I asked you to define sharpness?
Not answered.
That would be a valid argument. Do you have one of those?
Not answered.
I'm still curious what fucked up definition of "sharp" you're using that isn't the opposite of "blurred". You have an opportunity to be the bigger person here, show how smart you really are, and educate someone (who's asking you to do so) and I can only imaging the only reason you'd pass that up is because you've got nothing. In a way, that disappoints me, because I used to come here with the expectation that I'd occasionally learn something.
Alternately, why don't you explain how I'm wrong, rather than just calling me dumb? You remember when I asked you to define sharpness? That would be a valid argument. Do you have one of those?
Let's see you reply to the game developer in this conversation. He's more qualified to tear you apart than I am, which, of course, is why you chose me.
How about you define sharpness for me, then? Or, try this: open your image editor, create a new 1280x720 image, give it a white background, and draw a black, 1px, solid line across it. Look at how sharp that is, a crisp transition from black to white. Now, upscale that to 1920x1080 and look again. Not as sharp.
Of course, I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you, so, there's that.
Slashdot Mirror
You must not know any of them. I do, they exist, and they behave as described. Not every Apple user is like that (I'm certainly not, I own a MacBook Pro and I love it, but have no interest in pretty much anything else Apple makes), but those people do exist and they're vocal enough that they appear to be the majority, whether they are or not.
Your phone disconnects from the charger and runs off battery once it's charged? I'd assume, then, that it reconnects once it's not fully charged anymore (e.g. immediately)? How many charge cycles is that per hour? DERP. It keep drawing power once it's done charging the battery, to run the phone, so it isn't wasting charge cycles by discharging and recharging the battery. Do you even own a power meter?
It's not desperation, as I'm through arguing, it's an "oh, damn, I should have said this, too". The distinction matters. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, you simply are not going to convince me until you do, though. It is the one thing I've actually been trying to get out of you for what, 5 days now and I honestly don't care that much. Maybe I have backward definitions of things, I still understand the principles and can make them work, so this whole argument boils down to definitions and you simply refuse to share yours. How can I admit that your definition is right and mine is wrong when you won't tell me what yours is? Namaste.
And yet you still haven't answered the one question I've actually asked. What definition of "sharp" are you using? I can admit I'm wrong when someone actually shows me that I am. Look through my post history and you'll see that. But, when someone resorts to insults and troll tactics, as you've done here, i feed them for amusement. So, are you going to answer my actual question, finally? You do realize that the definition of "sharp" is the foundation of our argument and the only way you are going to winis to answer that question. It's the only real supporting proof your case has.
I have to ask you though, why is it okay for you to insist that "sharp" has different definitions between digital imaging and photography, but not okay for me to insinuate that the same may be true for "blur"? Not that I was doing so, but you attacked me for it, so I have to ask. Why is that?
For reference, yes a physical AA filter, as used in photography, does blur the image. I thought I had pointed that out, but I may not have; I'm too tired of this to go back and look. Meanwhile, the definition of "blur" seems to agree with my position. I'm not redefining anything to get to this point, I'm using the textbook definition: "make or become unclear or less distinct". In digital imaging, antialiasing makes things more clear; you even said so yourself:
Your view would imply that a non-anti-aliased scene is better than an anti-aliased scene for say, an FPS where you're looking down a straight road. This is nonsense, because without that blur you're actually going to end up with a scene that looks less real - it fits your definition of sharper.
And you did so while at the same time making an incorrect assumption of my definition of "sharp". I've given you my definition, by the way; I'm still waiting on yours.
Actually, I see where the confusion may have come in... I didn't look closely enough at that PDF I linked to and thought it was the actual theorem and not some professor's ramblings about said theorem. Having gone back and looked at it again, I see my error and will attempt to find and link to the correct document.
Have you considered the possibility that it is you who is wrong? You seem unable or unwilling to answer one simple question (instead explaining your way all around the answer), which would be quite simple for your to answer if you were confident that your were correct. I'm not 100% sure I'm right, which is why I'm asking in the first place; your answer will confirm one way or the other; your lack of answer thus far seems to lean in my favor, rather than yours.
Really? The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, the definitive explanation of aliasing and antialiasing, is pretty clear on what antialiasing is, and it is not blur; it is the removal of signals of higher frequency than your target resolution (in this case, removal of details smaller than a pixel). Averaging, as is used in supersampling (described in your GeForce link), is not blur. Had you not stopped at my first (and self-admittedly horrible) resource, and actually read and understood the material that not only best describes, but actually originated, the idea of aliasing and antialiasing in digital signals, you might realize that I'm not redefining anything at all.
Speaking of redefining, can I get that definition I keep asking for?
wow... fail paragraph at the top there... Should read "Then, I spent an hour writing a well-thought-out response, clicked Preview, then closed the window. FML. Here's a quick and dirty summary of what I wrote."
you're the sort of person that ended up working in a fast food joint
Again with the insults and assumptions! I worked in one for 3 years, yes. I started there, I did not end up there. Today, I run a successful creative and business development firm and remain very hands-on in all aspects of the business.
but either way you sound like your worship the profession and what it does
No, I'm not sure where you're getting that. I have an interest, but it's far from worship. In my teen years, almost 2 decades ago, I dabbled. I even developed a couple of algorithms that I simply didn't have the computing power to reasonably implement (waiting hours for an image to render on the 386 that was handed down to me isn't something I had the discipline to do back then) at the time and, now that I have plentiful resources, the one resource I'm lacking is the time to actually implement them. I have the whitepaper still (around somewhere) from the image format I developed, which natively lends itself to scaling (down without loss of sharpness, up without loss of detail, as well as a draft spec for an audio format based on similar principles. I'd like to implement them some day, when time permits, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
and if so then why aren't you aspiring to it?
Lack of resources when my interest was stronger, lack of time now that I have the resources.
if you're still skeptical of the idea that an upscale can still create a sharper scene than a lower resolution non-upscaled scene
This is why I keep asking you for your definition of "sharp" as it relates to digital imaging. As I understand it, it is the relationship between resolution and detail; if your image contains all the detail it can possibly contain at a given resolution, it is as sharp as it can be. If you have a sharp 1600x900 image and you scale it to 1920x1080, you don't magically regain the detail that was lost when it was sampled or rendered at 1600x900, you decrease the density of the existing details and, thus, the sharpness of the image. See Nyquist-Shannon. If that disagrees with your definition of "sharp", then I need to know what that definition is. Still. Which is why I keep asking.
that blurring is sometimes a good thing
Using the 1600x900 to 1920x1080 example I just gave, yes, even a simple bi-linear filter will look a damn-sight better than nearest-neighbor. Better scaling algorithms will look better still, but they won't recover detail and, therefore, will negatively impact sharpness as I understand it. From the way you talk about it, I could assume that you define "sharp" as "looks better", but I'd rather hear the definition from you directly than risk incorrectly inferring it, which is why I keep asking you to define it. We do seem to be in agreement that "blurry" beats "blocky", though (and I can get behind calling blockiness a type of blur, even; that fits my prior, loose definition of "sharp" as "the opposite of blur", as blocky images a not, as you incorrectly implied I believed, sharp).
rather than telling me I haven't explained something when I have
You've explained your definition of "sharp" quite well, I'm sure. You still haven't simply provided a concise definition, which is what I'm asking for.
and just assuming I'm wrong
If you think you've answered my question, you're very wrong.
or bad at teaching
I asked a simple question: What is your definition of "sharp"? You keep explaining around that question, rather than answering it, and I'm sure you're explained quite well and in much detail, but you still have not given the definition, so I still have no idea what you're explaining. That makes you a bad teacher.
Since you originally brought up AA, though:
The only mentions of blur on Wikipedia's AA Page relate to photography (near the top of the page) and an separate operation done before resampling an image (in a comparison against proper AA).
But, Wikipedia is a horrible source, so I won't leave you with just that. So, here's another, along with an explanation of the Nyquist–Shannon Sampling Theorum, and one more not from Wikipedia (PDF warning). I didn't cherry pick these, these were top results for simple searches on the subject (and also all items I've already read and understood at points far preceding this argument).
Clearly, having read and understood any factual materials on the subject, AA is, as it relates to digital signals, not a form of blur. Your link (which is very basic and dumbed-down for the graphics card consumer; a poor choice for an actual technical argument) doesn't disagree with that stance, either.
(whilst admitting you're wholly unqualified on the subject)
Admitting someone else, who works in the field, is more qualified is not the same as admitting I'm unqualified. And no, you still have not answered the one fundamental question I asked you: What is your definition of "sharp"? Answer that and we'll be good here. That's what I'm wanting to learn. Really, stopped reading the rest of your wall of text at the part I quoted, so you may well have finally done that, but if I could get just a simple, concise answer to the question you claim to have repeatedly already answered, that would be great. No explanations of how AA is blur, or (misguided) attempts to guess at my definition of blur, or insults, or insinuations that I don't want to hear your answer (when the reality seems to be that you don't want to give it), just your definition of sharp. That would be enough to get us on the same page; step one in those communication skills I mentioned earlier. Clearly, you're not saying what you think you're saying, and that's not my problem.
Why? There are 2 USB 3.0 ports, as well. The adapter is an added expense and point of failure.
How soon before they start overtly regulating content?
As soon as they have global jurisdiction. In other words, never. Can you pass that pipe, though? That must be some good shit.
They hadn't finished drafting the response to public comment. It was 300-and-some pages when everyone was bitching that it hadn't been released yet. They've added a bit of content in that time; now it's 400.
He's doing it wrong.
Mind pointing out where I ever mentioned focus or contrast in this conversation? Flat out, I did not. I asked you to provide me with your definition of "sharpness" and you, still, at this point, have not. I'm asking you to educate me on that specific point so that I can see where you're coming from, and all you can do is tell me my point of view is wrong based on shit you keep incorrectly inferring about my point of view. I want to learn, but you are clearly incapable of teaching; you first have to understand how my understanding is wrong, and thus far everything you've told me is wrong about my understanding is just what you have inferred and not my actual understanding.
Follow?
The "sharpness" setting on most displays does work by attempting to increase the contrast between pixels, and it typically looks like shit. It's mislabeled and should be called "artificial contrast". This is not what I understand as "sharpness", as you have implied here. It also has nothing to do with focus, which is what you've previously (also incorrectly) implied my understanding of sharpness to be. If you are agreeing with me that "sharpness" is the opposite of "blur", which is what I've been trying to drag out of you, then why don't you just come out and say that? Then, your explanation that some upscaling algorithms are better at guessing than others (by your own admission, some are just simple pixel estimation; Lancsoz, for example) would have been readily accepted.
But, the fact remains, even the best algorithms guess at everything and, when they guess wrong, that is incorrect detail, which one may conflate with blur, the opposite of sharpness. Further, if you don't have time to properly render the scene at the correct resolution, you don't have time to use one of the better algorithms, either; you end up with, at best, Lancsoz, and at worst, nearest-neighbor. Where algos like HQnx and nxBRZ shine is pre-rendered rasters, where the resolution has already been determined and does not mach your output resolution; they are not useful in instances where you simple don't have time to render at your native resolution in the first place, as you likely also don't have time to perform the calculations necessary for those algorithms.
Regarding your earlier mention of AA as a type of blur, it is actually quite the opposite. The best method of Antialiasing is downscaling: rendering the image larger, then combining multiple pixels into one. For example, rendering the image at 3840x2160 and blending each 2x2 group of pixels into a single pixel. The analog in photography (since you keep bringing it up) is multiple rays of light hitting individual pixels of the camera's sensor, or hitting the same grain of the film. Yes, there is less detail than the originally-rendered image, so the displayed image will technically be less sharp, but it will be as sharp as the display allows, and much more accurate. I think we're in agreement on that accuracy point, and that AA is always preferred when possible. I'm just intending to point out how it is, in fact, the opposite of blur (which, in computer graphics, comes from interpolation or blending with n pixels with n+x pixels, where x >= 0, where downscaling is the opposite, blending n pixels to create n/x pixels; in one case, you have the same number of pixels, or more, and some blur; in the other, you have fewer, and no added blur).
I don't do this for a living, by any means, but it i something I've been exposed to for my entire life and I have a decent enough understanding of the topic to hold my own in these conversations once I've identified the points everyone in the conversation is trying to make. You need to work on your communication skills given that it took this long for you to spit out anything even closely resembling a point; that's not meant as an attack or an insult, but as friendly advice. I've been there, too.
That last line was sincere. Can literally nobody here poke any holes in that post?
Oh, what? Looks like I was perfectly qualified to tear you apart. How about you answer some of those questions you claim to be on to of, then? Seriously, if I'm wrong, don't just tell me I'm wrong and call me dumb, explain why I'm wrong, and tell me what's right; my eyes and mind are open, it's part of the reason I'm here. Educate me, oh great one.
How about you define sharpness for me, then?
Not answered.
Alternately, why don't you explain how I'm wrong, rather than just calling me dumb?
Not answered.
You remember when I asked you to define sharpness?
Not answered.
That would be a valid argument. Do you have one of those?
Not answered.
I'm still curious what fucked up definition of "sharp" you're using that isn't the opposite of "blurred". You have an opportunity to be the bigger person here, show how smart you really are, and educate someone (who's asking you to do so) and I can only imaging the only reason you'd pass that up is because you've got nothing. In a way, that disappoints me, because I used to come here with the expectation that I'd occasionally learn something.
Alternately, why don't you explain how I'm wrong, rather than just calling me dumb? You remember when I asked you to define sharpness? That would be a valid argument. Do you have one of those?
Let's see you reply to the game developer in this conversation. He's more qualified to tear you apart than I am, which, of course, is why you chose me.
How about you define sharpness for me, then? Or, try this: open your image editor, create a new 1280x720 image, give it a white background, and draw a black, 1px, solid line across it. Look at how sharp that is, a crisp transition from black to white. Now, upscale that to 1920x1080 and look again. Not as sharp.
Of course, I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you, so, there's that.
Ahh, so you're actually qualified to comment? You realize this is Slashdot, right?
Indeed, but I was replying to Xest's claim that "the whole point in upscaling is to increase sharpness".
What upscaling does is reduce per-pixel detail
Upscaling fits a smaller image onto a larger screen. By necessity, it blurs the image slightly, thereby reducing sharpness.
Okay, I'm ready, tell me I'm wrong.