--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:53:57 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is also a slight lack of clarity in calling
> what the code does now
> "linear". Averaging colours over 4.35 pixels , for
> example, cannot be
> described as linear interpolation!
> Maybe the name "linear" should be changed to better
> reflect what the code
> does. Perhaps "pixel mean" or "average".
> This would accurately reflect what the code does in
> both directions since
> linear scale up does not actually do a linear
> interpolation anyway (ie fit
> a first order polynomial), it does a mean which
> gives the same result.
> It does not sound a good since we're all so used to
> linear but it is
> understandable to just about anyone and does
> accurately describe what the
> code does in both cases.
> Any other suggestions?
> Gimp-developer mailing list
Personally, I would guess only a very small percentage
of users care what the names are. They just try one
and if they like the result they keep it. If not,
they try another. Actually, I think the best naming
method for the end user would be based on speed and
quality (fastest, best, etc.)
Anyone who really wants to know the details of the
method can feel free to look at the code. Including
detailed descriptions somewhere in the help would be
an option, too.
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
Gimp-developer mailing list