Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by heavenlyblue 1057 days ago
Surely if you're upscaling pixel art you're loosing information when you create gradients between pixels. It doesn't seem to me that your metric of information loss was ideal.
2 comments

Conservation is not just about preserving info, it's also about not adding information that's not here. If you upscale without those gradients (effectively sharpening to the max with nearest neighbor extrapolation) you introduce high frequencies that could not exist in the original data. You've created new information out of nowhere.

But of course you're correct that in this case it may be the desirable outcome. I still think that this idea of creating information using algorithms in order to get a subjectively more pleasant result is really one of the biggest issues of our time. Not a day passes where I don't see AI-colorized pictures, AI-extrapolated video footage, AI-cleaned family portraits, AI-improved smartphone footage etc...

It's both amazing and a bit scary, because in a certain way we rewrite history when we do this, and since the information is not present in the original it's very difficult to ascertain how close we truly are to reality. We're creating a parallel reality, one Instagram filter at a time. Maybe that's the true metaverse.

> in a certain way we rewrite history when we do this

History is sort of inherently rewritten. Memories are (very!) imperfect and even without realizing it we interpret events through our individual biases. Maybe the more precise concern is the increasing _willful_ departure from reality, but we do that naturally too, overlooking parts of reality that would be intolerable if they were always in our face.

Quite, no new information so no “loss” but not the information that needs to be there.

It’s putting an 8oz coffee brew in a 20oz cup & giving it to the customer as a large saying they had no coffee loss. While true, it’s not the same as delivering a 20oz coffee.