> David Hodson wrote:
>
>> Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
>>
>>> It is known incremental scaling produces better results than one-step
>>> scaling.
>>
>> Only if your scaling algoroithm is not very good. Better would be
>> to fix any problems in the scaling algorithm, and scale in a
>> single pass.

(Sorry, I accidentally replied direct to Alexander first time...)

Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
I've downsampled from 1562x1562 (crop) to 64x64 (avatar). And the
incremental scaling produced definetely better results. GIMP 2.2.3,
Windows, cubic scaling.

The problem with scaling down by a large factor is that you need to average out a large number of pixels to get an accurate result. As far as I know, the Gimp rescale function uses the same algorithm for scaling either up or down, so if you're using cubic interpolation it will only sample 16 pixels.

The simplest solution is to blur the image before scaling down.
I'd try with a radius about the same as the scaling factor, but
that's just a guess.

--
David Hodson  --  this night wounds time
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Reply via email to