Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Two beached fishing vessels, Nørre Vorupør, Denmark, 2015-07-09-5588.jpg

File:Two beached fishing vessels, Nørre Vorupør, Denmark, 2015-07-09-5588.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2020 at 01:48:33

Info The ubscaled version has better details and sharpness (Original nomination)
Delist and replace by File:Two beached fishing vessels, Nørre Vorupør, Denmark, 2015-07-09-5588 upscaled.jpg-- Wilfredor (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does the term "upscaling" mean here? How was this achieved? --Peulle (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that this was done with an incredible artificial intelligence "Topaz Gigapixel" technology that has been proven to generate more details from non-existent pixels. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't "generate more details", it's just like they have some better algorithm for extrapolating available pixels than usual, that's all. --A.Savin 22:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In that case, I completely agree with the others.--Peulle (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No. Never ever. High resolution is no self-purpose -- it is only desirable if it really adds detail, otherwise it's nothing but playing with software and a waste of disk space. "Topaz Gigapixel" may make images *look* better in comparison to the same upscaling just when Photoshop or anything else was used; but it does not make images better in reality. Detail is something that only the camera+lens can produce, no software in the whole world is able to add it. Regarding the nominated picture, it is easy to proof it, when juxtaposing both images in full size. Please take a look at the left sign. Can you read its fourth row (where the phone numbers are) better in the upscaled version rather than in the non-upscaled one? Obviously no. And that's the point. Higher resolution, but not a tiny better detail. --A.Savin 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A.Savin put words to my uneasiness when seeing this nom. There is no merit in doing these bloated images. It's like putting botox into a file. --Cart (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need, nothing extraordinary can be seen in upscaled image. Upscaling... can be done just with camera. Or if you have software like in "Castle". --Mile (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This 'Topaz Gigapixel' software sounds too good to be true. It just doesn't make sense that any software program can generate details that aren't there. If it does do what the manufacturers say, this nomination doesn't go far enough, we might as well process every FP on this site through the software and get free extra resolution. But honestly speaking, I don't believe it. It seems from reading the webpage that what the program is actually doing is guessing what the extra pixels would look like and filling in the gaps using its AI software to figure out what they would be likely to look like; but I don't really see how that differs in any practical way from normal upscaling, it's just that the program is better at it. It's interesting software and I might look into purchasing it, but nothing can add details that aren't there. Cmao20 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback, I honestly think that the larger image is not only large but sharper, but, perhaps, artificial intelligence is not intelligent enough to add real details at the moment. Thank you so much for the comments. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]