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
On Wednesday 29 October 2008, Nicolas Robidoux wrote:
Implementation note:
If two different methods are used, do the upsampling with the better
for enlargements method first (unless you can do them both at once,
but this is quite challenging programming wise). This approach is
slower, but
10 matches
Mail list logo
