What does a Windows program like Genuine Fractals do that Gimp cubic
interpolation does not do, when I'm upscaling photographs for
printing to 8x10 and beyond?
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've been following some instructions oriented toward photoshop that
talk of unsharpen mask settings including a radius of 0.3 or 0.8.
I notice that Gimp's implementation has a minimum radius of one.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, 15 Jan 2002, Martin Waitz wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:37:13PM +, Austin Donnelly wrote:
I think I was the last person to substantially modify the iscissors
code. I read the paper you reference above, and indeed it was quite
helpful. However, note that their
On Tuesday, 15 Jan 2002, Martin Waitz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:08:28AM +, Austin Donnelly wrote:
I did test-implement it. #define USE_LAPLACIAN and recompile to see
if it makes much difference. I couldn't see a visual different, only
it was a bit slower.
well, then your
Hi,
Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday, 15 Jan 2002, Martin Waitz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:08:28AM +, Austin Donnelly wrote:
I did test-implement it. #define USE_LAPLACIAN and recompile to see
if it makes much difference. I couldn't see a visual
1.2.2 definitely has the USE_LAPLACIAN code in, but it is not enabled.
The current developer head in CVS doesn't. I'm assuming that as part
of porting iscissors.c to the new tool model someone (Mitch/Sven?)
took the opportunity to strip out unused code. This is a perfectly
reasonable thing to
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:43:43AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does a Windows program like Genuine Fractals do that Gimp cubic
interpolation does not do, when I'm upscaling photographs for
printing to 8x10 and beyond?
What are you expecting by upscaling pictures? Why do you do
On 15 Jan 2002, at 0:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been following some instructions oriented toward photoshop that
talk of unsharpen mask settings including a radius of 0.3 or 0.8.
I notice that Gimp's implementation has a minimum radius of one.
This is:
- a question?
- a comment?
-
On 15 Jan 2002, at 0:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does a Windows program like Genuine Fractals do that Gimp cubic
interpolation does not do, when I'm upscaling photographs for printing
to 8x10 and beyond?
What does Genuine Fractals do?
Please do not expect us to know every graphics
Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1.2.2 definitely has the USE_LAPLACIAN code in, but it is not enabled.
The current developer head in CVS doesn't. I'm assuming that as part
of porting iscissors.c to the new tool model someone (Mitch/Sven?)
took the opportunity to strip out unused
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been following some instructions oriented toward photoshop that
talk of unsharpen mask settings including a radius of 0.3 or 0.8.
I notice that Gimp's implementation has a minimum radius of one.
I'm quite sure that it's just the UI which is limiting the
On , 15 Jan 2002, Michael Natterer wrote:
I stripped out the USE_LAPLACIAN part not because it was unused
but because my impression was that it could not work:
gimp-1-2/app/iscissors.c has the following piece of code:
#ifdef USE_LAPLACIAN
static gint laplacian [9] =
{
-1, -1, -1,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Tino Schwarze wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:43:43AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does a Windows program like Genuine Fractals do that Gimp cubic
interpolation does not do, when I'm upscaling photographs for
printing to 8x10 and beyond?
What are you
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:02:22PM +0100, Tino Schwarze wrote:
What are you expecting by upscaling pictures? Why do you do that? It
will definitely not improve quality as there is no gain in information.
Isn't it better to upscale pictures using Gimp's bicubic interpolation
prior to printing
Michael Natterer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been following some instructions oriented toward photoshop that
talk of unsharpen mask settings including a radius of 0.3 or 0.8.
I notice that Gimp's implementation has a minimum radius of one.
I'm quite sure that it's just the UI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-01-15 at 1512.52 +0100):
I've been following some instructions oriented toward photoshop that
talk of unsharpen mask settings including a radius of 0.3 or 0.8.
I notice that Gimp's implementation has a minimum radius of one.
I'm quite sure that it's just the UI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
With people talking on this list about plugin distribution and management
again recently, I figured it'd be nice to have some document which is worked
out a bit more than the ideas that have been thrown up so far. So I've
started to make
Hi,
Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With people talking on this list about plugin distribution and management
again recently, I figured it'd be nice to have some document which is worked
out a bit more than the ideas that have been thrown up so far. So I've
started to make such a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 20:39, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
snip
if I'm informed correctly someone is already working on a plug-in manager
but I'd like him to speak up here on himself.
If you're reading this, yes, please do so. That'll save me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 21:14, you wrote:
Hi,
snip
I said with the current design. A plug-in manager should definitely
be designed to also work for pluggable tools (Bex, how would I spell
this correctly?) which is something we definitely want
what has happened to the above machine?
(it is one of the anoncvs.gimp.org dns-round-robin machines)
it responds to ping, but when connecting to port 2401 i get
a 'connection refused'
--
CU, / Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen, Germany
Martin Waitz// [Tali on IRCnet]
On 15 Jan 2002, Sven Neumann wrote:
if I'm informed correctly someone is already working on a plug-in manager
but I'd like him to speak up here on himself.
I said I would be interested working on something like that but I probably
don't have the skills or knowledge of GIMP to do it all
Hi,
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is there already a way in gimp to do background calculations?
i.e. perform some lengthly calculations while user interaction
is still possible?
well, they are not really _that_ long i guess, but too long
to not react on user input in that time.
23 matches
Mail list logo
