The value in the gimp histogram is calculated as the maximum of the red,
green and blue channels now. Wouldn't it be better to use the average of the
three color channels?
is something
completely different.
But perhaps it is better to use the median instead of the average, or maybe
the 90% percentile or something.
Roel Schroeven
20:30:07 2001
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@
for (i = start; i <= end; i++)
{
- sum += i * histogram->values[channel][i];
+ sum += histogram->values[channel][i];
if (sum * 2 > count)
return i;
Roel Schroeven
I noticed in the source code that the histogram widget uses a logarithmic
scaling. Is there a reason to do it that way, as Photoshop et al. seem to
use a linear scaling.
Sorry if this has been brought up before; I searched in the mailing list
archives, but didn't find anything on it.
Austin Donnelly wrote:
> So, fixing this bug means that the Levels tool, the Threshold tool,
> and the Equalise tool will all also change their behaviour: currently
> they use a histogram of the entire layer, but restrict their changes
> to the current selection. Fixing the bug means that the hi
:
if (mask)
{
gdouble masked;
src = region->data;
msrc = region->data;
I would think that msrc ought to be a pointer into the mask data instead
of the region data, like this:
msrc = mask->data;
Regards,
Roel Schroeven
