* Marco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Barton Bosch wrote:
>> Hey Marco, could you tell whether and why using bicubic for enlarging
>> and bilinear for reducing is better than using bicubic for both? I was
>> under the impression that bicubic was the highest quality algorithm for
>> all resizing operations.
> No, I couldn't. I cannot find any reason based on a clear mathematical
> However I'm quite sure that bicubic is not a panacea for all resizing
> operations. In
> is given an example of better results with "Nearest Neighbour" instead
> of bicubic (because of the image nature).
> is described this bilinear/bicubic option of PSP.
> The question is tricky. And I'm very interested in a clear answer. My
> opinion is that (sometimes) bicubic for reducing smooths the image too much.
I found this off comp.periphs.scanners:
Though it doesn't tell about 'real-life' performance (PS CS's will
likely produce 'sharper' looking image), it seems ImageMagick does the
Psi -- <http://www.iki.fi/pasi.savolainen>
Gimp-user mailing list