On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 17:46 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
> > GEGL is doing that.
> GEGL is not doing that. GEGL certainly has display-pyramid code, but
> GIMP does not currently use GEGL's implementation, it has it's own
> (app/base/tile-pyramid.c)
Oops, sorry, I must have misunderstood soemthing p
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 17:46 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
> As far as I understand it, each step of the image-pyramid is produced
> by averaging every 2x2 pixel square from the step above it. If the
> zoom matches exactly one of the stored pyramid levels, it is used
> directly in the display.. O
Hi Liam,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Liam R E Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 01:44 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
> [...]
>> By the way, what kind of downscaling is used for the view zooming?
>
> GEGL is doing that.
GEGL is not doing that. GEGL certainly has display-py
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 01:44 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
[...]
> By the way, what kind of downscaling is used for the view zooming?
GEGL is doing that.
I have found that for scanned engravings, where I often scale down
to 11% or smaller, that GIMP 2.6 is not only much faster, but
usually has much
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:52 +0100, Joern P. Meier wrote:
>
>> The new Gimp 2.6 "Cubic" option usually yields too bad quality to
>> be considered (I won't even begin with "Linear").
>
> I guess you are running into bug #556248 here (which will be 'fixed'
> in 2.6.2).
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 wi
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
> algor
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 yielde
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
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 21:03 +0100, Claus Berghammer (Bugzilla) wrote:
> But this benchmark represents, what an "average" user notice at first:
> Gimp 2.6 needs much more time, and doesn't deliver that much more
> quality.
Sorry, but your benchmark doesn't show a dramatic slowdown. The impact
Hello...
All the responses make clear to me, that there is quiet a lot do do about
scaling in gimp ;-)
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
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 b
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 rele
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, 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:
> http://www.nabble.com/Scaling-in-Gimp-2.6
15 matches
Mail list logo
