On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:57:23 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 10:44 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Note the conditional "should" and the uncertainty "probably". I'm not
>> being dogmatic or presumptuous. I'm doing _exactly_ what you suggest
>> proposing a re-examination and also proposing an alternative that I
>> consider better.
> That's perfectly valid and we may even reconsider it. But then it used
> to be called nearest-neighbour and at some point we spent a lot of
> thought and discussion on these labels and changed them to what we have
> now. Somehow I am not very inclined to have this discussion again. It
> seems like a waste of time to change things back and forth when we could
> spend that time to move forward instead.
indeed it should move forwards rather than oscillate. Like I said in the
relevant bug report there will be a need to re-evaluate all of these
labels in relation to interpolate/decimate which is actually quite
different code. NONE would clearly be part of that discussion.
However this has diviated from my suggestion which was nothing to do with
the NONE label but rather with indexed pallette warning.
I think "nearest neighbour" is non technical, very obvious in it's meaning
and readily understood.
I dont see the sense in Gimp stating that it does something it does not in
a warning that is supposed to clearify what happens.
c/Indexed colour layers are always scaled without interpolation/Indexed
colour layers are always scaled using basic nearest neighbour
over and out.
Gimp-developer mailing list