[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-10-15 at 0609.12 +0000): > > 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
Another similar pages talking about filtering (demo and/or code) just in case someone wants to get deeper: http://www.binbooks.com/books/photo/i/l/57186AF8DE http://www.antigrain.com/ http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/zoom.html Basically, there are better methods than current GIMP ones (or some other common apps, for that matter). Search yourself, not the first time the issue of best quality (transformations, noise, colour, etc) appears in GIMP lists. > 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. Well, the typical approach to test signal processing systems is to use some kind of "simple" input, mostly cos it is easier to compare with output. GSR _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
