>>3999939>Nigger, we're talking about televisions.Faggot, we were talking about both. Which we should be since there's no real difference now.
>Every photo editor does it when zooming in, Only on whole integer zooms. They switch to better algorithms on fractional zooms.
>I never said it was new tech. Just not implemented at a hardware level on TVs and monitors.You don't need it "implemented in hardware." It's not a complex calculation ffs.
>No, user interfaces and icons look better too.Old, pre HD/pre sub-pixel rendering UIs and icons do. Newer ones do not.
>EVERYTHING should use integer scaling.Double down retard. It's literally the worst scaling algorithm for anything other than old, low res, pixelated computer content. Pic related, tiny crop from a low res image (sub-HD) scaled 4x. If this was a frame of video, which video would be sharper?
>The lost sharpness by not using nearest neighbor is the issue. LOL nn kills sharpness on most content.
>You're wrong. You can literally Google this and read article after article with example after example proving how wrong you are. Who in the fuck would scale real world, photographic/video content using nn?
>I'm saying because TV manufacturers are assholes people should stick with their old devices at native res rather than upgrade, Stick to your Nintendo NES on a 13" CRT for all I care. My 4k monitor was a big jump in IQ on ALL content.
>until nearest neighbor scaling is standard.It will never be standard because it is shit. It will be the mode a GPU or TV switches to when it auto detects old video game content. That's all.
>It doesn't change the original content at all. It actually does. In the real world if you walked closer to an object it would not become pixelated. More sophisticated algorithms are literally more truthful in this respect.
