Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:27 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
>> You're absolutely right. This discussion is pointless. If you suggest
>> that a script for scaling down in several steps is a valid solution you
>> know as much about image manipulation as I do about coding. So don't
>> waste each other's time.
>> I'd be happy if you choose to listen to the users, even if they can't
>> make a patch. But since the first time I was here, I see the same: every
>> suggestion a user makes, you almost call him stupid.
> First of all, I didn't call you or anyone else stupid. Second, this is a
> developer list. If you want to make a user suggestion without going into
> implementation details, then please use the gimp-user mailing-list for
> The point you raised is handled in our bug-tracker and it was high on
> the priority list for 2.4. Unfortunately it has not been resolved yet.
> As a member of the gimp-developer list, I expect you to know that.
> There is not much point in bringing it up again since that is not likely
> going to help. That's why I call this a pointless discussion for the
> developer list.
> Gimp-developer mailing list
I can't seem to find the associated bug. Does anybody know which is the
I've got a test version (for scale-funcs.c) that scales down in reducing
the image 1/4 each step.
Between each step a the image is blurred before starting the next reduce
The final step performs a bilinear interpolation.
1000 x 1000 => blur (3x3 gauss) => 500 x 500 => blur (3x3 gauss) =>
250x250 => bilinear interpolation => 200x200
Gimp-developer mailing list