Thread:Vizard6991/@comment-30035163-20170530050726/@comment-30035163-20170530221804

Alright, thank you. I mostly just wanted to talk this out. I'll try to be more civil. I haven't been getting good sleep myself. I'll try edit out all my complaints on that subject, so as not to waste Angelo's time.

Vizard6991 wrote: "As for native resolution, one of the things that I found odd was how your file size was larger than the one provided by ZERoPie, despite having a smaller pixel ratio. I'd assumed you made resizing modifications to the photo through image scaling when you citied proper scaling.

One of the main reason I don't like jpg that the file format sometimes has these comparability issues."

This issue is likely because JPGs can be saved at various qualities. When looking through the higher quality published ebooks, I noticed the images are created with very minimal JPG compression. This results in a higher file size. I personally like to avoid modifying the files myself unless absolutely necessary.

Vizard6991 wrote: "Either way, to make Angelo's life easier. I'll allow you to re-upload the volume 10 photos if you circle through photoshop the exact area where you cite as being blurry with the given resolution also provided."

The blurring is present throughout the entire image. Stretched images come in various sorts, and many programs use a method to smooth out the pixels so that it doesn't look absolutely horrible. But such stretching is always most noticeable around the text. However, it's also visible in all the other lines. If I was to point out any detail that was blurred, I'd have to say it was every line. The lines are not as crisp as they should be.

I could probably throw together a comparison right now.

Alright. This is Zero's file. For a screencap, it's not bad. If there weren't any original files, I'd definitely keep it.

[]

Now this is the original file expanded to the exact same resolution in photoshop. Hosted on Imgur, because I don't want to pollute the wiki. I set JPG compression to medium to make the best comparison, which makes the image look a little like shit to me.

http://i.imgur.com/SmjTrO2.jpg

I was actually surprised to find that the text and lines were actually clearer than zero's version. I was expecting it to be just as bad, but it's just slightly better. However, I believe this demonstrates that the image has been stretched and compressed at a lower quality than the original.

Here's another version I saved as a PNG rather than a JPG, so it's without additional compression. It still looks like shit.

http://i.imgur.com/2rbkpta.png

The one on the wiki also has these weird lines going through it on Garf's legs, that aren't even present in my stretched and compressed version.

http://i.imgur.com/sa98nCR.png

Vizard6991 wrote: "Also, I've noticed that the upper left hand edge of this photo is visibly blurry and looks almost cut off by the edge of the scanner used. The contrast is pretty lackluster as well. "

I actually agree completely, but I wasn't the one who scanned it. I found it on the internet, but it's official artwork and I'm willing to accept low quality if superior ones can't be located. These things from the store specials are pretty rare, and digital versions don't exist. Also, noticed one had already been posted in Ricardo's gallery, at even lower quality, so I felt I may as well get these images out there.

Now off to edit out all of my complaints. Thank you for taking your time to look at this.