On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:24:20 +0200, Mark Lowry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Actually, I think the best naming
> method for the end user would be based on speed and
> quality (fastest, best, etc.)

thanks for the post.

I know what you mean but "fast and a bit grainy better on small reduction  
ratios" does not work and "fast" without any further comment is about as  
much help as "good" , "best" etc. It's too subjective to be able to say  
this sort of thing.

Sure it would good for the user if the life of DSP was that simple, sadly  
it ain't.

Also Gimp is not aiming at a click and "share" audience. Let's try to  
imagine that some of the user-base probably know a lot more about the  
subject than we do and treat them with a bit of respect.

Anyone who has no idea what linear means will, like you say, suck and see.  
Everyone else has the right to some indication as to what method they are  
selecting. Hell, they may even know what they are doing!

It seems there was some discussion in 2005 about decimation but it was  
rather inconclusive.

Clearly "linear"="cubic" is nonsense, both analitically and UI wise. The  
options should do something different. Looking a bit closer, reduction  
seems to require some top-down design before coding takes place.

1/ It seems that "linear" aka average should be wieghted rather than just  
the mean it seems to do now.
2/ Is cubic a valid reduction method. It seems to provide better results  
than decimation near to 1:1 , does decimation need a wider window or is  
cubic good here?
3/ Can the different needs of interpolation and decimation be represented  
by the same interface? (Same drop down list.)
4/ I leave lanczos out of this for the moment because I think Yuu's  
contribution will finally provide the missing link on L3 reduction. I  
expect it be the most consistant of the current options, working in both  


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to