My working assumption is that GEGL should be as consistent as possible
with GIMP.
gegl/gegl/buffer/gegl-sampler-cubic.c, for example, contains the
following code:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
gegl_sampler_cubic_get (GeglSampler *self,
gdouble x,
gdouble y,
void *output)
{
...
gint dx,dy;
...
dx = (gint) x;
dy = (gint) y;
sampler_bptr = gegl_sampler_get_ptr (self, dx, dy);
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring the issue of the asymetric behavior of int casting when one
crosses 0 vs the "right boundary" (see gegl-sampler-linear.c or
gegl-sampler-sharp.c for a fix) I want to double check that pixels are
understood to be centered at points with integer coordinates (for
example (0,0) is a possible pixel location, but not (.5,.5) throughout
GEGL and GIMP (excluding plug-ins, of course). If there are
exceptions, are they relevant to resamplers and abyss policies?
If there is a discrepancy between GEGL and GIMP, I will have Adam and
Eric align GEGL with GIMP as much as possible.
Nicolas Robidoux
Universite Laurentienne.
_______________________________________________
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
