ofnuts wrote:
I do agree that this specific implementation/version of the algorithm
on
this specific part of this specific photo looks better. Period(*)
Ok, but my problem is that I have mostly blackheaded sheeps in my cattle. And
renat's case show's that this is not only a matter of scanning
ofnuts wrote:
And renat's case show's that this is not only a matter of
scanning printed docs.
Moreover, I faced the similar grid while downscaling many other landscape pics
with huge flat - but not absolutely flat - surfaces, be it sky hit by noise a
bit, or a sea-view with a small waves. So this
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 21:11 +0200, wk_ wrote:
Liam wrote:
If it is a scan of a printed document is is to be expected that
there may be moiré patterns, even if the scanner is set to apply a
descreen filter.
I feel that there is something lost from my original post. Like it
never
So, if you scale down to 51% (which is about 2x) you first do a 2px
Gaussian blur. Result here:
http://imgur.com/iZB3lmw
Do you agree that Gimp 2.6 version looks still out much better?
http://pasteboard.co/27ib9Dvx.png
Wbr,
Gunnar
--
wk_ (via www.gimpusers.com/forums)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
So, if you scale down to 51% (which is about 2x) you first do a 2px
Gaussian blur. Result here:
http://imgur.com/iZB3lmw
On 20/04/15 09:25, wk_ wrote:
Steve wrote:
I got the original image you posted, and enhanced the contrast with
duplicate
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 22:20 +0200, wk_ wrote:
Steve wrote:
I have never seen anything exactly like this, so I am confident
that it is not an artifact introduced by scaling an image in the
GIMP.
I don't understand your way to this conclusion. In my original post I
have
source scan,
Hi!
After installing new Gimp 2.8 (on Lubuntu 14.04 64bit) for our employee, she
noticed, that scanned images are going pixelated (like moire effect) much more
than with previous Gimp when scaling images down. I made a little set to
comparision.
This is clip of original scanned (300dpi) image:
