>>5919691I didn't actually see he had posted the same thing larger earlier, hence me asking to see it larger. I'm not the same anon as the one up the reply chain.
>What for?So I don't have to open it up in another pixel art program to actually see the details properly? If someone posts a 16x16 pixel image, is it wrong to want to see it at a higher resolution/scale, to give it a proper judging, outside the context of an editor?
I can understand not scaling up larger portrait style pixel art to some extent for it's easily visible, but if it's a lone image of individual characters or objects, scaling up is a must, or rather the standard. Anybody sharing pixel art on Pixeljoint, Deviantart, Pixiv, Twitter, 4chan etc, rarely ever just posts their art at the original resolution, the site either has built in tools to enlarge the image like pixeljoint, or the user has to take upon the responsibility of enlarging their stuff before posting. Also anti-aliasing has a scaled up limit before it loses its purpose.
Say for instance, the original resolution of this tree I made in
>>5855194 is 24x24 does scaling up not make it easier to critique than pic related?
>>5919705I only acted defensively because the comment seemed somewhat condescending and because I'm on 4chan,on /ic/, where I can act like I have stick up my ass quite freely.
