Timeline for Will scaling down incrementally hurt quality?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dec 10, 2011 at 19:59 | history | notice removed | Jari Keinänen | ||
Dec 10, 2011 at 19:59 | history | bounty ended | Jari Keinänen | ||
Dec 8, 2011 at 13:13 | answer | added | thebodzio | timeline score: -1 | |
Dec 4, 2011 at 0:37 | answer | added | Alan Gilbertson | timeline score: 5 | |
Dec 3, 2011 at 17:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackDesign/status/143017227711561728 | ||
Dec 3, 2011 at 16:06 | history | notice added | Jari Keinänen | Improve details | |
Dec 3, 2011 at 16:06 | history | bounty started | Jari Keinänen | ||
May 11, 2011 at 7:17 | vote | accept | JoJo | ||
Apr 16, 2011 at 9:11 | answer | added | Dawson | timeline score: 1 | |
Apr 16, 2011 at 2:12 | answer | added | Mateen Ulhaq | timeline score: 11 | |
Apr 15, 2011 at 18:54 | comment | added | JoJo | @muntoo Edited to say 75% once and 50% twice. 25% twice is actually bigger than 50% once. | |
Apr 15, 2011 at 18:51 | history | edited | JoJo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
wrong math
|
Apr 15, 2011 at 10:13 | comment | added | Jari Keinänen | Not an answer but a possible solution for your problem in ⁋2: if possible, convert the layer you're about to resize to a Smart Object, it can be scaled back and forth without any effects to the original file's quality. | |
Apr 15, 2011 at 7:09 | answer | added | mgkrebbs | timeline score: 3 | |
Apr 15, 2011 at 5:32 | comment | added | Mateen Ulhaq |
I'm assuming you mean "50% once vs 25% twice"? Even so, (100%-75%)*(100%-75%) != 50% . But I believe I know what you mean, and the answer to that is "no", and you won't really be able to tell the difference, if there is any.
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 at 2:01 | history | asked | JoJo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |