Pireze or not, redjuice's art is awesome.

Shanyy said:
Pireze or not, redjuice's art is awesome.

Perhaps I should turn pireze into a fault tag.

I'm sure I've seen a better version of this somewhere...

pireze tag rofl
So this is why you were asking about it earlier on the forum. Can I post the other artbook here then? Or better not?

Debbie said:
Can I post the other artbook here then? Or better not?

pool #1925 ?

Debbie said:
pireze tag rofl
So this is why you were asking about it earlier on the forum. Can I post the other artbook here then? Or better not?

Judge the quality before you post, simply.

This is amazing! O_O

EDIT: What about this?
http://moe.imouto.org/post/show/115201

EDIT again: Just noticed this one is higher res, nvm.

Higher resolution, lower quality. Seems that's what pireze is about...

Also, what about aliasing pireze to color_issue?
*imagine a malicious smile here*

Tecnically, optic book and IT8 target are faults.

both pool #1926 and pool #1925 have critical color issue obviously

PS: The most important point of image is color, not resolution. cameras can do better job about color recreation than scanners. I'd say photos have more higher quality than scans before learning how to recreate colors.

Why would you post this? If mods here don't care about image quality, we can hardly convince anyone else to.

Let's say, this is a temporary upload, until there isn't any better scan.

Shanyy said:
until there isn't any better scan.

I don't scan books whose artist possibly send us a C&D ( http://www.pireze.org/blog/?p=14924 )

It seems at least the "Stop pireze scans" problem is solved...

blooregardo said:
pool #1925 ?

Yep, that. It doesn't have "color issues" fault tag, so perhaps it's good enough.
Thank you for uploading. And thanks bloo for pointing it out too.

Debbie said:
Yep, that. It doesn't have "color issues" fault tag, so perhaps it's good enough.

no, it's bad enough before spending tagging. if it needs mass tagging, I'd rather use the mod tag script +flag (mass delete)

This one is a good evidence of the issue: check how detailed is the parent (post #115201) and compare to this one, everything has been gone. And there is more cases of how wrong can this go: post #157066 and post #114279

Debbie said:
Yep, that. It doesn't have "color issues" fault tag, so perhaps it's good enough.
Thank you for uploading. And thanks bloo for pointing it out too.

If that's "good enough", then we may as well give up.



Seriously: there are details visible in the 425x600 samples on toranoana that you can't see in those (post #156997).

What message are we trying to give? "As long as a scan is 300 DPI, nothing else matters"?

Debbie said:
Yep, that. It doesn't have "color issues" fault tag, so perhaps it's good enough.
Thank you for uploading. And thanks bloo for pointing it out too.

petopeto said:
If that's "good enough", then we may as well give up.

Seriously: there are details visible in the 425x600 samples on toranoana that you can't see in those (post #156997).

What message are we trying to give? "As long as a scan is 300 DPI, nothing else matters"?

Debbie...I think you better stop.

Debbie can speak as she likes. I'm just worried that people don't recognize how seriously color faults can damage an image, and that we seem to set standards for resolution but neglect color entirely.

Put it this way: the contents of pool #1925 is enough to make me decide that I don't like the artist. When I see what the artist's work actually looks like, I find that the pool isn't what the artist's work looks like at all. That's the worst possible outcome.

Understood.