Hi,
just sending this link again since I dont think my last post got to the
m.l.
It's the article Graeme refers to which covers all this rather well.
http://www.worldserver.com/turk/computergraphics/ResamplingFilters.pdf
/gg
___
Gimp-developer
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 10:54 +0200, Geert Jordaens wrote:
I get the feeling that we are mixing 2 things here.
1. scaling for display purposes (uniform X and Y scaling)
2. scaling as a effective drawing transformation. (X and Y scale can be
different)
For the second case, it only needs
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:34:03 +0200, Graeme Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Øyvind Kolås wrote:
More theoretically correct
resampling methods like a Sinc filter with an infinite neighbourhood
definitly is not something one would want in the view code.
I'm not sure what you mean by view code
Øyvind Kolås wrote:
On 8/9/07, Graeme Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Øyvind Kolås wrote:
This code implements a perfect box filter for this case, what needs to
be added on top
of this to be able to do good estimate (maybe even exact) box filter
resamplings is trilinear interpolation
On 8/8/07, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 13:58 +0200, Geert Jordaens wrote:
What would be a correctly designed filter for scaling down by factor 2?
I'd say the code in app/base/tile-pyramid.c, in particular
tile_pyramid_write_quarter() counts as a well-done and
Øyvind Kolås wrote:
This code implements a perfect box filter for this case, what needs to
be added on top
of this to be able to do good estimate (maybe even exact) box filter
resamplings is trilinear interpolation by doing bilinear interpolation
on the two closest 50% 25% 12.5% .. levels of
On 8/9/07, Graeme Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Øyvind Kolås wrote:
This code implements a perfect box filter for this case, what needs to
be added on top
of this to be able to do good estimate (maybe even exact) box filter
resamplings is trilinear interpolation by doing bilinear
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 19:35 +0200, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
For downscaling (decimating) box filtering is orders of magnitude
better than the buggy erronious use of interpolation that currently is
used in GIMP.
For what it's worth, for www.fromoldbooks.org, I routinely scale
images down to 20% or
Øyvind Kolås wrote:
More theoretically correct
resampling methods like a Sinc filter with an infinite neighbourhood
definitly is not something one would want in the view code.
I suggest reading the article, rather than jumping to the
conclusion that a Sinc filter is a recommended option.
Of
David Gowers wrote:
On 8/7/07, Geert Jordaens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't seem to find the associated bug. Does anybody know which is the
bug report?
I've got a test version (for scale-funcs.c) that scales down in reducing
the image 1/4 each step.
Between each step a the image is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:57:00 +0200, Geert Jordaens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did some reading on image pyramid's (googling) and there the blur
action is described as a low pass filter.
Factoring the blur out is not a problem. I also have to look to the
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:27 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
You're absolutely right. This discussion is pointless. If you suggest
that a script for scaling down in several steps is a valid solution you
know as much about image manipulation as I do about
Hi,
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 21:20 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
Presently, the solution to this is to scale down incrementally (reduce
scale by 50% until you approach the desired scale, and then scale down
to that exact size.)
Nice tip. I'll try it.
It's not that comfortable but
Anyway, there is no point at all in pointing out how important such a
change would be. Several people have tried to improve the downscaling
quality over the last two years. Do you seriously suggest that we wait
another two years with GIMP 2.4?
I'm reading my previous comments and I can't find
Guillermo Espertino wrote:
[...reasons..]
I'm out of here.
Sad to hear, input from users are important, even if not all developers
agree on all suggestions made by all users. You are welcome to return
any day.
- Martin Nordholts
___
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:27 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
I'm trying to say that if this version took 2.4 years of development, it
would be a pitty if all the new stuff come together with this long time
issue.
Yes. It's a pity. But without a working patch we don't have much of a
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:27 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
You're absolutely right. This discussion is pointless. If you suggest
that a script for scaling down in several steps is a valid solution you
know as much about image manipulation as I do about coding. So don't
waste each
A couple of weeks ago somebody commented about the quality of the
downscaling in Gimp.
iirc there was a patch that improved the quality (that was bumped for
future releases) and there was a discussion about the pertinence of the
different names of the algorithms in the interface.
Well, I know
On 8/6/07, Guillermo Espertino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of weeks ago somebody commented about the quality of the
downscaling in Gimp.
iirc there was a patch that improved the quality (that was bumped for
future releases) and there was a discussion about the pertinence of the
David Gowers wrote:
Perhaps you mean supersampling?
Yes, it must be. I'm using a spanish localization of Gimp and try to
guess the correct translation.
Is there a command line option to launch gimp in english (just once, not
permanent) so I can use the correct words when I'm reporting a bug
Guillermo Espertino ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
David Gowers wrote:
Perhaps you mean supersampling?
Yes, it must be. I'm using a spanish localization of Gimp and try to
guess the correct translation.
Is there a command line option to launch gimp in english (just once, not
permanent) so
21 matches
Mail list logo
