On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:29:08PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I could get a good image, but not to the satisfaction of the customer. It
> appeared to be the way in which imagemagick scales the image as opposed to

Do you have an example image? Really, either you hit a bug in imagemagick
itself, or you are simply doing sth. wrong. ImageMagick can use exactly
the same algorithm as gimp.

> gimp.  Gimp seems to handle it better.  I would think it would be pretty much a
> wash but based on what i have coded up so far....it's not the case.   At least
> not for the client who is really really picky about the pixelation.  

What, exactly, were you doing (state the command line) with imagemagick?

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED]      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to