On 2018-08-07 15:47, Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list wrote:
> I want to apply mantiuk06 to a really big image. However, using the
> GEGL CLI, I get very different results than when I apply the filter
> from within gimp as compared to using the GEGL CLI. See [1]: left is
> orig
On 2018-08-13 13:09, Partha Bagchi via gimp-user-list wrote:
> The image is 2048x1536 (3.1 MP). Best you can hope for is an 8 by 10.
> That's inches. If you are willing to sacrifice quality further you can try
> printing in 150dpi which would give you 14 by 10.
I'm not sure I'd go even that big.
On 2018-08-13 15:01, nickib wrote:
>> You might be going about this all wrong. If you really want to use
>> this to produce a very large physical print, I would consider
>> embracing that the original image is smudgy by upsampling it (maybe
>> to 7200x3600 if not 14400x7200 after cropping it to
On 2018-08-13 15:43, Ofnuts wrote:
> On 08/13/18 20:31, Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list wrote:
>> Also, make sure you save the result at least as a JPEG with 98% to 100%
>> quality, if not PNG.
>
> I second the idea to hide the defects with some heavy "artistic&quo
On 2018-08-15 15:14, nickib wrote:
> Wow - the revision you created is beautiful! Honestly I don’t understand most
> of your explanation but the end product would be perfect! Bottom line - how
> large - realistically- could that be made and still look good?
With my version, *as is*, I wouldn't
On 2018-08-09 09:40, Pat David via gimp-user-list wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> I want to apply mantiuk06 to a really big image¹. However, using the
>> GEGL CLI, I get very different results than when I apply the filter from
>> within gimp as compared to using
I want to apply mantiuk06 to a really big image¹. However, using the
GEGL CLI, I get very different results than when I apply the filter from
within gimp as compared to using the GEGL CLI. See attached image: left
is original, middle is mantiuk06 applied from within gimp, right is
mantiuk06
Why do I get such radically different results from STRESS when used fron
within gimp vs. the GEGL CLI? For some scenes, the results seem
comparable, but skies especially are very washed out with the CLI, and
it is even worse with new versions of GEGL (e.g. 0.4.6 vs. 0.2.0).
See
On 10/09/2018 14.32, Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list wrote:
> Why do I get such radically different results from STRESS when used fron
> within gimp vs. the GEGL CLI? For some scenes, the results seem
> comparable, but skies especially are very washed out with the CLI, and
> it i
