Steve Stavropoulos wrote:
On 11/19/05, Dag Rune Sneeggen wrote:
John Leach wrote:
Looking at the original, I can see what it's accentuating but it looks
bad. Other photos look great, much sharper compared with the cubic
algorithm. This seems rather too sharp, in the wrong place.
But
Hi,
John Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just downloaded the 2.3.5 snapshot and had a go with the Lanczos
resizing algorithm. It seems to bring out some strange artifacts in
one photo (actually, the first I randomly tried).
The Lanczos implementation in CVS is buggy and unless someone
John Leach wrote:
Hi all,
I just downloaded the 2.3.5 snapshot and had a go with the Lanczos
resizing algorithm. It seems to bring out some strange artifacts in one
photo (actually, the first I randomly tried).
Looking at the original, I can see what it's accentuating but it looks
bad. Other
Hi,
Dag Rune Sneeggen wrote:
But still, its clearly a faulty algorithm... Quite serious as well(?)
This might be a silly question, but why is GIMP using interpolation at
all when reducing images?
Shouldn't it be doing weighted averaging of all the source pixels that
contribute to a
On 11/19/05, Dag Rune Sneeggen wrote:
John Leach wrote:
Looking at the original, I can see what it's accentuating but it looks
bad. Other photos look great, much sharper compared with the cubic
algorithm. This seems rather too sharp, in the wrong place.
But still, its clearly a faulty
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 02:18:03AM +, Alastair M. Robinson [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
But still, its clearly a faulty algorithm... Quite serious as well(?)
This might be a silly question, but why is GIMP using interpolation at
all when reducing images?
Shouldn't it be doing weighted