AVID:Requests for Comment/Upscaling images

I have seen one user complain about another updating uploads that are upscaled versions of the previous ones. The question with this is whether or not to allow upscaling on the site? On one hand, they do increase the quality of small sizes but at the same time lose the small details within them.

So, the format of this RfC will be different from the others, considering I am not sure whether to speak in favor or against them, but still revolves around gathering community consensus on a specific idea. Camenati (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Allow upscaling

 * 1) ✅ so long as it is for active preservation rather than for the sake of upscaling. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (name change coming soon) 05:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) We need it for quality. Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png (• USER TALK! •) 12:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Forbid upscaling

 * 1) While it may indeed increase the quality, it doesn't look great most of the time and, in general, feels inauthentic. Metronome (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't agree with this upscaling as it either just blows pixels up and creates images that are too big for the server in the long run, or if it were interpolating, would make a rendition that trys to emulate the image into a higher scale. It is somewhat a problem in the cases of poor quality logo captures or sources, and I don't think this should be allowed. E.J. 12.25.2022 9:53 Pm.
 * 3) . Upscaling an image, to me, is a cheap way of having a "higher quality" version of an image. Say I wanted to upload a 4K version of the Paramount logo, I'd much rather capture it from a 4K Blu-ray than upscale a DVD of it. Dominicmgm (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) per everybody else. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 04:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) nope EsaïeGregoryPrickett (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsure
Both sides are making good points (The Third Place) 16:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)