* 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 
> proof.
>
> However I'm quite sure that bicubic is not a panacea for all resizing 
> operations. In
>
> http://www.msjc.edu/m2/gall/resampling-nearest&bilinear/resampling.html
>
>   is given an example of better results with "Nearest Neighbour" instead 
> of bicubic (because of the image nature).
>
> In
>
> http://www.mav-magazine.com/Apr1999/resample/
>
>   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:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm

Though it doesn't tell about 'real-life' performance (PS CS's will
likely produce 'sharper' looking image), it seems ImageMagick does the
better thing.


-- 
   Psi -- <http://www.iki.fi/pasi.savolainen>

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Reply via email to