H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Dec 26, 2022 07:07 AM UTC:
Depends on how much you zoom in. At 100% they look identical (as they should; this is what anti-aliasing by definition does: reduce away the excess resolution that is not representable on the pixel lattice). At 500% (the max of my tablet) the first two look blurred, the third still looks crisp.
The difference is when the anti-aliasing is done: when it is done server side to get 50x50, the info needed to get good 200x200 is not available in the browser. So zooming in makes the image vague. If you leave the anti-aliasing to the browser, the zoomed image still looks good. (But it is the same process, so if you ask for the same resolution it gives the same result.) Because the higher spatial frequency components were sent to it, even when not needed or usable at 100%. But is will start to use them when the zoom factor requires it.
Depends on how much you zoom in. At 100% they look identical (as they should; this is what anti-aliasing by definition does: reduce away the excess resolution that is not representable on the pixel lattice). At 500% (the max of my tablet) the first two look blurred, the third still looks crisp.
The difference is when the anti-aliasing is done: when it is done server side to get 50x50, the info needed to get good 200x200 is not available in the browser. So zooming in makes the image vague. If you leave the anti-aliasing to the browser, the zoomed image still looks good. (But it is the same process, so if you ask for the same resolution it gives the same result.) Because the higher spatial frequency components were sent to it, even when not needed or usable at 100%. But is will start to use them when the zoom factor requires it.