Hi Liam,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Liam R E Quin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 01:44 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
[...]
By the way, what kind of downscaling is used for the view zooming?
GEGL is doing that.
GEGL is not doing that. GEGL certainly has display-pyramid
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 17:46 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
As far as I understand it, each step of the image-pyramid is produced
by averaging every 2x2 pixel square from the step above it. If the
zoom matches exactly one of the stored pyramid levels, it is used
directly in the display..
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 17:46 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
GEGL is doing that.
GEGL is not doing that. GEGL certainly has display-pyramid code, but
GIMP does not currently use GEGL's implementation, it has it's own
(app/base/tile-pyramid.c)
Oops, sorry, I must have misunderstood soemthing
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:52 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
The new Gimp 2.6 Cubic option usually yields too bad quality to
be considered (I won't even begin with Linear).
I guess you are running into bug #556248 here (which will be 'fixed'
in 2.6.2).
That may
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 01:44 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
[...]
By the way, what kind of downscaling is used for the view zooming?
GEGL is doing that.
I have found that for scanned engravings, where I often scale down
to 11% or smaller, that GIMP 2.6 is not only much faster, but
usually has much
Hello Gimp Developers,
Sven Neumann asked me to move this thread from the Users mailinglist, to
developers. The original discussion can be found here:
http://www.nabble.com/Scaling-in-Gimp-2.6-is-much-slower-than-in-Gimp-2.4-to20185528.html
There is also a Bug in Bugzilla:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Claus Berghammer (Bugzilla)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Gimp Developers,
Sven Neumann asked me to move this thread from the Users mailinglist, to
developers. The original discussion can be found here:
David Gowers writes:
...
It is certainly possible. As Sven pointed out, we should probably
first address the craziness of using interpolation routines (linear,
cubic, lanczos) for downscaling. Do we even need to offer a choice of
algorithym for downscaling (Box filter of appropriate
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 13:07 +0100, Claus Berghammer (Bugzilla) wrote:
Benchmarking GIMP Scaledown Performance:
Scale layer from 5000x5000px - 2500x2500px:
This particular case (downscaling by 50%) is broken in GIMP 2.6.0 and
2.6.1. A workaround is in SVN and will be in the 2.6.2
Hello...
No, my benchmark was NOT intended to come close to yours ;-) My main interest
was the time it takes for processing. I only tested ONE image, not several in
several resolutions...
Its clear to me, that different scale factors can/will result in different
quality of images.
But this
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:06 +0100, Claus Berghammer (Bugzilla) wrote:
I just can repeat myself, the old routines were good enough for most
cases/people, so I would like to see the option, to use it alongside
the new code. This could be easily (from a user's perspective ;-)
done, by a HQ
Hi,
I don't think the performance is the biggest issue. However, the results
of current (i.e. Gimp 2.6.x) downscaling are.
In Gimp 2.4 I could use the Cubic Option which resulted in a little
blurring, but that could be fixed with a judicious use of the Sharpen
filter. So in the end, it yielded a
Claus:
You wrote:
I don't want to say much about what type of interpolation is good
for what and when, since I don't have the knowledge that for. But 2
things I'd like to comment:
1.) No more interpolation Options?
David Gowers mentioned: Do we even need to offer a choice of
algorithym
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:52 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
I don't think the performance is the biggest issue. However, the results
of current (i.e. Gimp 2.6.x) downscaling are.
In Gimp 2.4 I could use the Cubic Option which resulted in a little
blurring, but that could be fixed with a
14 matches
Mail list logo