Let r be the downsampling ratio (approximately equal to the output and
input widths in pixels).
I would not expect NoHalo to give great results if r * OFFSET_0 is much
smaller than 1, and LoHalo if r * OFFSET_0 is much smaller than 2.
Specifically, if OFFSET_0 is 16, I would not expect any of the
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Elle Stone
wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 10:03 AM, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
>> This is what an adaptively increasing the OFFSET0 constant for
>> significant downscaling in the sources might achieve - do note that
>> what is meant by significant downscaling here is when scaling
On 10/23/2017 10:03 AM, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
This is what an adaptively increasing the OFFSET0 constant for
significant downscaling in the sources might achieve - do note that
what is meant by significant downscaling here is when scaling down to
below 1% of original size - even in such scenarios n
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Elle Stone
wrote:
> Agreeing with what you say, I've tried lohalo and never saw any reason to
> use it instead of nohalo. For several years now nohalo is the only
> downsizing method that I use.
>
> I see in the git log that some changes have been made recently to
On 10/23/2017 09:13 AM, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
The actual reason for this email is that I think it might be overkill
to have both lohalo and nohalo available as choices, they are related
and powerful transformation ellipsis aware methods, maybe it is
sufficient to have one go-to high quality resampl
Evaluating many mildly diverging images is part of image development,
but as much as possible should not need to be part of the workflow for
operators of software like GIMP. Providing many toggles, options and
references is a way to botch complicate the user interface visually as
well burden the co