On 4/12/06, Leeuw van der, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Steven,
> Sorry that my reply is getting a bit messy but outlook on windows isn't
> very well in quoting text...

never mind and i thank you!

> To get the latest version depends on your distribution. You can get the
> source tarball and compile, fetching any updated dependancies yourself.
> But a distribution like Debian is likely to have packages already built
> and available as part of 'unstable'.

ok, i know how to do you.

> Btw, since your images are scanned from film, perhaps they are already
> somewhat noisy?

yes, i found scanned images are usually noisy than digitial camera's.
it is actually a pain for me.  what's the best way of handling the

> Did you try to reduce noise, or perhaps increase
> sharpness / reduce blur / etc, before scaling the image?
> Just a thought - but it seems to me that (down)scaling a noisy image
> will give worse results than downscaling a cleaner image.

i do the noise reducing using despeckle filter.  but it was adviced in
many other articles that tools like despeckle will also introduce
blurring ( i found it's really true ) and should be down in the very
final step, especially after downscaling or upscaling.  so, i think i
have some problem to get your point here.  did you really suggest i do
the despeckle or some unsharp mask things before downscaling ?

> Another option would be to try scaling the images with imagemagick. It
> might already have lanczos scaling and other scaling options built-in
> with the version installed (or installable as pre-built package) with
> your distribution. You can even write a small shell-script to scale all
> images in some directory, if that's your thing.

supposing my Gimp has already equiped a Lanczos interpolation, when
comparing to imagemagic in scaling, which one performs better in term
of quality?


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to