Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Once 2.4 is out and there is a review of the interp naming strategy w.r.t.
downscaling the use of NONE should be probably be changed as well. (A
scaled up image with no interpolation has holes in it.)
Even though rather simplistic, N.N _is_ interpolation.
;)
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:53:16 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is overly presumptuous, in my opinion, to declare that labeling
nearest neighbor interpolation as None is an error on the part of
the user interface designers of the GIMP. It may be worthwhile to
propose re-examination of the
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 10:44 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the conditional should and the uncertainty probably. I'm not
being dogmatic or presumptuous. I'm doing _exactly_ what you suggest
proposing a re-examination and also proposing an alternative that I
consider better.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:57:23 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 10:44 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note the conditional should and the uncertainty probably. I'm not
being dogmatic or presumptuous. I'm doing _exactly_ what you suggest
proposing a
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 13:26 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think nearest neighbour is non technical, very obvious in it's meaning
and readily understood.
IMO it is very technical and the vast majority of users does not
understand its meaning. They also don't understand Linear or
David Gowers wrote:
On 6/23/07, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 13:26 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think nearest neighbour is non technical, very obvious in it's meaning
and readily understood.
IMO it is very technical and the vast
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:34:28 +0200, Geert Jordaens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Gowers wrote:
On 6/23/07, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 13:26 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think nearest neighbour is non technical, very obvious in it's
meaning
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:30:04 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:13:42 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:55 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I was not intending to emphasise layers, although I was trying
to
cover the case
Hi,
I just noticed a little warning has been added to interpolation dlg. Nice
touch, it's important.
Indexed colour layers are always scaled without interpolation. The chosen
interpolation type will affect channels and masks only.
I'm concerned this text is far too technical for most users
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed it may be best if this only gets shown when relevant. If there are
no indexed layers present (which will often be the case) it is irrelevant
and just slows the user by feeding him unneeded info to parse.
It is very
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:58:17 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed it may be best if this only gets shown when relevant. If there
are
no indexed layers present (which will often be the case) it is
irrelevant
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:55 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I was not intending to emphasise layers, although I was trying to
cover the case where an indexed layer was added. The basic point is that
this message is great if there is an indexed element in the image,
otherwise
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:13:42 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:55 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I was not intending to emphasise layers, although I was trying to
cover the case where an indexed layer was added. The basic point is that
this
13 matches
Mail list logo
