Forum:Regarding anti-aliasing and transparency

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Regarding anti-aliasing and transparency
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 November 2011 by Liquidhelium.

It has come to my attention that as of this edit, we no longer have any standards for anti-aliasing. I have come up with some solutions to this area.

Proposal 1: Rewrite


4x anti-aliasing should be applied all images, regardless of whether transparency is required or not. Current images without anti-aliasing should be tagged with the {{No AA}} template, except for historical images.

Proposal 2: Compromise< br />


Anti-aliasing is highly recommended for all images, depending on whether transparency is required or not. Most images requiring transparency should have 4x anti-aliasing, unless there is a very special situation where the image should have anti-aliasing turned off.

Proposal 3: Add the old information again.

Proposal 4: Remove the section on anti-aliasing altogether.


Support 3 - As nominator. --クールネシトーク 13:58, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Why would we need anti-aliasing? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 14:16, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Look at any image in [[:Category:Images lacking anti-aliasing]]. AA smooths out the edges and makes it more aesthetically pleasing. ɳex undique 14:27, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 14:54, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - None of our current image makers lack anti-aliasing, pretty sure we all agree that it's ugly and a step down from superior AA images. I tag every single non-AA image I see, and will continue to do so until they are replaced with prettier images. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Please don't; that's no good at all. --クールネシトーク 17:24, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
She (and everyone) should in fact do it, for we need to optimise our images, which includds adding AA. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:28, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
But I can't do transparency on AA images... --クールネシトーク 22:53, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
GIMP is free. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 03:11, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
You're not the only user who applies transparency, and quite a group of others can, so it doesn't matter. And yes, GIMP is really great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fswe1 (talk).
this is a great guide for learning how to apply AA trans to images. If you need more help you can ask me whenever I am on, or probably ask another user who can do AA trans too. The same is for everyone else who wants to learn how to do AA trans. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:54, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This would be added to the content section of the policy page, which already states "If these conditions cannot be met, an image can still be uploaded. A Standard detail image is better than no image at all!" Realistically, this will be a preferred standard of images rather than a requirement. I'd hope that everyone agrees with that. Any positive addition is fine, but nonetheless there's no harm in preferring and advising certain settings for images to work towards. We just need to decide what those settings will be. --Henneyj 17:42, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:44, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support 1 - Just add "Every image uploaded should have 4xAA if possible, unless it is a very special case (e.g. a glitch) where AA is bad. If you cannont trans it yourself, upload it anyway and add a trans tag." 'nuff said. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:27, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Also per Hofmic... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:19, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support 1 - AA helps the image massively, even if transparency is added, and lots of images that had transparency (but no AA) have been replaced by images with AA so far (now if only all those replacers would add the transparency as well...) Of course, UCS for cases when there might not be any AA, and naturally, we won't delete an image just because it doesn't have AA, but images without should always be replaced, and editors should be strongly encouraged to have AA on all images they upload. Hofmic Talk 04:27, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support 3 1 - 4X AA makes the image more clean, I.E A non AA image and 4X AA image Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 06:24, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Umm I think you should reread #3 :P sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:28, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Uhh >.> ooops Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 06:30, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - good old times when people didn't want AA for transed images Lol. Of course I think AA is better. it makes the image a lot smoother. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:54, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps we should also do something about {{AA}}? The two templates ({{No AA}} and {{AA}}) are very conflicting, and if we should have AA on every image, we should get rid of {{AA}}. Hofmic Talk 02:06, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Yes, at a time it was seen as difficult to impossible to add transparency nicely to AA images. While AA images can take longer to add transparency to than non-AA, in the end, it looks far superior to all other files (unless you're still using IE5 or earlier). Ryan PM 14:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What does IE do to those files? :3 bad_fetustalk 16:10, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
transparency doesn't work in IE --Iiii I I I 18:57, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Looks like the best option to me What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose 1 - Adding aa to images makes no real difference to the image quality. Yes the edges are blurred instead of jagged, but 99% of images are scaled down, and therefore anti-aliased anyways. If anything, we should just mention that it doesn't matter if it has it or not. I see no reason whatsoever to make them preferred images. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:18, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we shouldn't bother taking any images over 300 pixels... Hofmic Talk 04:44, October 6, 2011
By taking larger images we are able to gain more details than we would with a smaller image. anti-aliasing doesn't add any details, just a bit of eye candy that many people will never even see, because all scaled images are anti-aliased automatically. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:05, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
Err, so youre saying if we scaled 50% luke down, we wouldnt be able to tell the difference from[1] and [2]? It makes a difference. 20080201180922!Purple_partyhat.png Hunter103 Talk My weapon of choice, only after a zamorak godsword. 00:29, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Resizing it to 150px looks like this and this respectively for those images. Change the "150px" in the url to any other amount to resize it to different sizes, if you want. Also, maybe using that example is not the best, as the image still has AA in the badly transed version, so the only difference is the trans. A better example to compare a completely non-AA image with an AA one is this and this. Resizing it to 150px too makes them look like this and this respectively. You can see the AA image have a bit smoother edges, even when resizing them. The difference is like playing runescape in 2xAA and 4xAA. So, even when resizing non-AA images, they don't get as much AA as images with already 4xAA. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:10, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that AA is bad, nor am I denying that in many circumstances there is a slight improvement in image quality. What I am saying is that the difference in quality is so slight, and even imperceptible, when scaled down that its not worth it to officially "prefer" it over non-aa images. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:03, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
How about small images, like chatheads? Anyway, an uploader of an AA-less image can expect to see a better version with AA being uploaded over theirs at some point. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:17, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
Any improvement is an improvement. If we can get slight improvements with AA on all images, it is better to prefer AA over non-AA images. I do agree that a non-AA image is always better than no image though. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:25, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Horrible images make for a not-so-good article. AA PL0X? 20080201180922!Purple_partyhat.png Hunter103 Talk My weapon of choice, only after a zamorak godsword. 00:29, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - A wonderful example of the difference between without AA and with AA. Hofmic Talk 05:49, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah those are a great example for untransed AA/non-AA, and then for transed AA/non-AA this and this could be useful. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:16, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the problem I have have with this is that it encourages the uploading of AA images for those that currently do not have it. Whilst that in itself is not a problem, I have seen cases where an anti-aliasing has been uploaded without transparency in place of a non-aa image with transparency. In my opinion, transparency has a much more positive effect on an article than aa, and so this seems slightly counterproductive to me, especially given the time it can take for some images to be made transparent. I fear that introducing this as policy without restrictions will increase these occurances and ultimately create unnecessary work. --Henneyj 01:43, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. I added a lot of transparency to images that were once transparent, reluctantly (a non-transparent quest reward scroll image makes me twitch), and agree with transparency being more important than anti-aliasing. BUT, the proposal isn't stating anywhere that AA is more important, just that we should have a policy that we prefer AA over no AA, though perhaps it should add more emphasis to the transparency as well. And while I think transparency and no AA is better than AA and no transparency, it's a no brainer that transparency and AA together is the best way to go, but I'd most certainly like to see editors who add just AA to add transparency as well.
With that being said, I understand that many editors may not be sufficient with adding AA (though I can't help but think they could do better if they tried; particularly starting by reading one of the many guides), perhaps we just need a quality standard of some sort. If you just added AA to an image, but removed the transparency without any other major improvements (eg, Before | After), it's not acceptable, but if you drastically improved other aspects of the image, such as made it larger, more detailed, etc, it's more than worth it (eg, Before | After). Hofmic Talk 22:01, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
Nah. I think that trans-less AA > trans'd no AA. Of course, it should be trans'd ASAP. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:19, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fswe, I doubt our anon userbase cares if an image has transparency or not, as long as the image is clearly displayed. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:38, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
I dunno about that...
Hofmic Talk 06:37, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
This one is not even resized on the page, so definitely the upper one. But for monsters and NPCs, a background doesn't really matter. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:00, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
Umm yeah that just proves my point. <.< I dunno how you can think the bottom one is better, Hofmic, but we all have different opinions I suppose. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:21, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
I think anons don't really care about transparency. They see an untransed scroll there, and see the background of Zanaris. The background totally fits (like with a lot of other untransed images, as all of them are taken in the location they occur: quest scrolls at the end of the quest, NPCs at their normal location, etc), so I don't think they really mind it doesn't have transparency. What matters then is that the AA one just looks smoother, so I think people will actually indeed choose the untransed one, which will probably be transed quite soon anyway. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:28, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Proposal 1 will be adopted. --LiquidTalk 14:45, November 4, 2011 (UTC)