Jesper de Jong wrote:
>Is Gaussian blur not a standard algorithm that has a well-defined meaning
>for the radius? See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_blur
The answer is no, there is not a single well-defined meaning. From
a mathematician's point of view, the equation contains
On Nov 20, 2007 12:05 PM, Jesper de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is Gaussian blur not a standard algorithm that has a well-defined
> meaning
> > > for the radius? See for example
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_blur
> > >
> > > If it is, then which one is doing it wrong, CS3 or GIM
Hello David,
Both Photoshop CS3 and GIMP are set to pixels.
Jesper
2007/11/20, David Gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi Jespar,
> On Nov 20, 2007 9:23 PM, Jesper de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I noticed that with Gaussian blur, the Radius setting in GIMP means
> > something different tha
Hi Jespar,
On Nov 20, 2007 9:23 PM, Jesper de Jong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed that with Gaussian blur, the Radius setting in GIMP means
> something different than in Photoshop CS3.
>
> As a test, I made a black square on a white background and used Gaussian
> blur on it with Photoshop C
