Hi,

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 04:01 -0700, Claus Berghammer wrote:

> Since there is no explanation WHY the algorithm was rewritten, I guess 2
> possible reasons:
> 
>       1.)The old code did something wrong in some cases
>       2.)The new code was necessary due to GEGL integration
> 
> For the first point, I compared scaling results from 2.4 and 2.6, and they
> are (ignoring some harmless alignment issues) 100% identical (using
> difference blend mode). I also cannot remember, that in the past years, the
> scaling routine in Gimp produced noticeable wrong results. (Beside the
> lanczos interpolation, that didn't work right, when it was introduced)

Your analysis is wrong. There's a discussion about the problems and the
solution in bug #464466 (and several other bug reports linked from
there). This has also been extensively discussed on the gimp-developer
mailing-list.

Fact is also that scaling is not much slower in general. There are some
cases where it became faster. Other cases became slower, but the results
are of much better quality.


Sven


_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Reply via email to