Hi,
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 22:09 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Since the test results are looking good, I think we should commit the
> changes then so that they get more testing. Does anyone disagree with
> this? Otherwise I will commit the changes later this week.
The changes are in trunk for som
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 17:22 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> So far it feels noticeably slower on mediumsized or large
> images (e.g. a 13899x8497-pixel 2400dpi grayscale scan,
> which Gimp reports as 230MBytes) but the results are
> outstandingly better.
Since the test results are looking good
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:51:02 +0200, David Gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pixel art ('block graphics'?) is a
> pathological case for most scaling algorithyms, and no algorithym old
> or new performed very well on upscaling image #8.
> David
yes, this is a good test for scaling alorithms. I
David Gowers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I olso get the top+left pixel error but only when scaling using a script-fu.
>> Any idea?
>>
> No, sorry, all the scaling was done manually using GIMP's Image->Scale
> Image dialog, and that's ho
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:54 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> I've put your results online at http://svenfoo.org/scaletest/
I've tried the patch out a little.
So far it feels noticeably slower on mediumsized or large
images (e.g. a 13899x8497-pixel 2400dpi grayscale scan,
which Gimp reports as 230MBy
Hi solar,
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 6:58 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:53:36 +0200, David Gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've finished checking, and am just sending off the results and
>> webpage to Sven now.
>> David
>
> Thanks for all the hard work on this. A very
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I olso get the top+left pixel error but only when scaling using a script-fu.
> Any idea?
No, sorry, all the scaling was done manually using GIMP's Image->Scale
Image dialog, and that's how I got the problematic results.
David.
___
rkeley.edu
>Onderwerp: Re: [Gimp-developer] need help with bug #464466 (downscaling
>quality)
>
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM, David Gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The webpages are nearly finished, I'm checking them now.
>>
>> Some obs
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:23 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> I've finished checking, and am just sending off the results and
> webpage to Sven now.
Thanks a lot.
I've put your results online at http://svenfoo.org/scaletest/
Sven
___
Gimp-developer
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM, David Gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The webpages are nearly finished, I'm checking them now.
>
> Some observations on the results of scaling:
>
> * The old code mistreated the left and top edges, resulting in a
> duplication of up to 1 pixel on the left
The webpages are nearly finished, I'm checking them now.
Some observations on the results of scaling:
* The old code mistreated the left and top edges, resulting in a
duplication of up to 1 pixel on the left and top edge (and
corresponding omittal of a row of pixels on the right and bottom
edge).
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Geert Jordaens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Gowers wrote:
>> Hello. I've just completed the first half of the set (all specified
>> results before the patch). Currently image files total 66mb, I'm
>> guessing after adding the results after-patch this will
David Gowers wrote:
> Hello. I've just completed the first half of the set (all specified
> results before the patch). Currently image files total 66mb, I'm
> guessing after adding the results after-patch this will come up to
> ~110mb. During this testing I found one obvious bug, it remains to be
>
Hello. I've just completed the first half of the set (all specified
results before the patch). Currently image files total 66mb, I'm
guessing after adding the results after-patch this will come up to
~110mb. During this testing I found one obvious bug, it remains to be
seen whether the patch fixes
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Guillermo Espertino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please consider adding typographic elements (logos, text) and
> icons/diagrams to the test images.
> One of the most critic use cases where downscaling shows issues is with
> high contrast such as dark typography on l
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:19 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
>
>> Personally I think the test is being run under flawed conditions
>> (using nonlinear sRGB rather than linear RGB, which produces errors of
>> up to 50%
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:19 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> Personally I think the test is being run under flawed conditions
> (using nonlinear sRGB rather than linear RGB, which produces errors of
> up to 50% because interpolation is done linearly despite the
> colorspace being nonlinear.). How
Please consider adding typographic elements (logos, text) and
icons/diagrams to the test images.
One of the most critic use cases where downscaling shows issues is with
high contrast such as dark typography on light backgrounds.
This is particularly important when working with small designs for the
> Here are some images that may help show some problems -- colour photos
> tend to hide problems, partly because the eye sees the subject more
> easily and auto-corrects flaws, and partly because the hardest thing
> for rescaling is often preserving both texture and sharpness. Of
> course, most pe
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:15:38 +0200, Liam R E Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:14 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
>
>> > The one thing I definitely can't do is
>> > * Host webpage.
>
> I can do that if you want, although gimp.org would be better.
> As long as it's under a gigab
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:30 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> The one thing I definitely can't do is
> * Host webpage.
I don't think we have enough space currently on gimp.org to host this.
But it doesn't really matter where it is hosted. I can put the stuff
online if you give me a tarball that I
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:14 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> > The one thing I definitely can't do is
> > * Host webpage.
I can do that if you want, although gimp.org would be better.
As long as it's under a gigabyte or so.
Here are some images that may help show some problems -- colour photos
tend
Hi,
I've just completed producing images without the patch (using old
scaling code) for None and Linear methods.
This amounts to 2*77 = 154 images totalling 110 MB. Some of these I
plan to discard, for the cases where the old and new code produce the
same result.
One of the photos had transparency
I can do at least half of this task, possibly most of it.
* decide on test images:
2 landscapes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hapal/2292885459/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2432037855/sizes/l/ (or size
o/ )
3 portraits
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aturku
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 09:49 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> I can certainly offer images, I'm maxed out with work & meetings & stuff
> this month though, so apart from that I don't have spare cycles probably
> until the end of the month. Sorry for not replying first time round.
I don't think
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 00:32 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Since no one has offered to help with this bug so far, I see two
> options:
>
> (1) postpone this change for 2.8
> (2) commit the changes and release them with 2.5.2, revert if needed
I can certainly offer images, I'm maxed out with work &
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 08:25 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Geert has made some progress on the patch to improve downscaling
> quality in GIMP (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464466) and
> we would like to include this change for GIMP 2.6. But in order to do
> this, we need to know if
Hi,
Geert has made some progress on the patch to improve downscaling quality
in GIMP (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464466) and we would
like to include this change for GIMP 2.6. But in order to do this, we
need to know if the approach taken with this patch is indeed an
improvement ove
28 matches
Mail list logo
