> Usually people choose nearest neighbor in scenarios like that to be faithful to the original
Perhaps I should have chosen a higher resolution. AIUI, in many modern systems, such as your OS, it’s usually bilinear or Lanczos resampling.
You say that the resize should be faithful to the “100x100 display”, but we don’t know whether it was used from such a display, or coming from a camera, or generated by software.
> I'm almost certain this process didn't preserve sharp pixels
Sure, but modern image processing pipelines work the same way. They are working to capture the original signal, with a hopeful representation of the continuous signal, not just a grid of squares.
I suppose this is different for a “pixel art” situation, where resampling has to be explicitly set to nearest neighbor. Even so, images like that have problems in modern video codecs, which model samples of a continuous signal.
And yes, I am aware that the “pixel” in “pixel art” means a little square :). The terminology being overloaded is what makes these discussions so confusing.
Perhaps I should have chosen a higher resolution. AIUI, in many modern systems, such as your OS, it’s usually bilinear or Lanczos resampling.
You say that the resize should be faithful to the “100x100 display”, but we don’t know whether it was used from such a display, or coming from a camera, or generated by software.
> I'm almost certain this process didn't preserve sharp pixels
Sure, but modern image processing pipelines work the same way. They are working to capture the original signal, with a hopeful representation of the continuous signal, not just a grid of squares.
I suppose this is different for a “pixel art” situation, where resampling has to be explicitly set to nearest neighbor. Even so, images like that have problems in modern video codecs, which model samples of a continuous signal.
And yes, I am aware that the “pixel” in “pixel art” means a little square :). The terminology being overloaded is what makes these discussions so confusing.