The animation when you change images makes it harder to see the difference, I opened the three images each in its own tab and the differences are more apparent when you change between each other instantly.
If you have to have both and instantly toggle between them to notice the difference, then it sounds like it’s doing its job well and is hard to notice the difference.
But now that I double-check, I was comparing with the images zoomed to 200%. On desktop the artifacts are also noticeable at 100%, but not nearly as bad as in my previous comment.
I didn't see it immediately either, but there's a ton of added noise. The most noticeable bit for me was near the standing person's bent elbow, but there's a lot more that becomes obvious when flipping back and forth between browser tabs instead of swiping on Twitter.
I was on desktop and it looks like pretty heavy jpeg compression. Doesn't completely destroy the image, but it's pretty noticeable when blown up large enough.
The animation when you change images makes it harder to see the difference, I opened the three images each in its own tab and the differences are more apparent when you change between each other instantly.
But that’s not realistic?
If you have to have both and instantly toggle between them to notice the difference, then it sounds like it’s doing its job well and is hard to notice the difference.
What kind of artist is not going to be bothered with seeing huge artifacting on their work? Btw for me it was immediately noticeable even on mobile
4 replies →
The person who drew it would definitely notice.
One of the few times a 'blink comparator' feature in image viewers would be useful!
At full size it's super obvious - I made a side-by-side:
https://i.imgur.com/I6EQ05g.png
I still don't see a difference. (Mobile)
Here's a maybe more mobile friendly comparison:
https://i.imgur.com/zUVn8rt.png
But now that I double-check, I was comparing with the images zoomed to 200%. On desktop the artifacts are also noticeable at 100%, but not nearly as bad as in my previous comment.
Have you done a color blindness test before? Red-green is the most common type and the differences here are mostly shades of green.
1 reply →
Second picture looks like you were looking at it through a dirty window, there's lot of pale white stains, or light reflections, it's really blurry.
Look at the forehead and arms. The processed version looks like it's been run through a posterization filter.
What phone are you using? It’s extremely obvious on my iPhone
Something similar to jpeg artifacts on any surface with a normally smooth color gradient, in some cases rather significant.
I didn't see it immediately either, but there's a ton of added noise. The most noticeable bit for me was near the standing person's bent elbow, but there's a lot more that becomes obvious when flipping back and forth between browser tabs instead of swiping on Twitter.
look at the green drapes to the right, or any large uniform colored space. It looks similar to bad JPEG artifacts.
I don't have great vision, but me neither. They're indistinguishable to me (likewise on mobile).
I was on desktop and it looks like pretty heavy jpeg compression. Doesn't completely destroy the image, but it's pretty noticeable when blown up large enough.
It's really noticeable on desktop, like compressing an 800kb jpeg to 50kb. Maybe on mobile you won't notice, but on desktop the image looks blown out.
It took me a minute too but on the fast you can see some blocky artifacting by the elbow and a few spots elsewhere like curtain upper left.
The gradient on the bat has blocks in it instead of being smooth.