Geert Jordaens writes: > I do not see any reason why one would have to specify up or downsize in > the parameter since this can be determined from the in and output size, > what about translations? All the "to be named" samplers can be used for arbitrary warps, and all can be used for upsampling, downsampling and everything in between (stretch in one direction and shrink in the other). However, the "down" ones will do better at minimizing the undesirable artifacts generally apparent when performing (heavy) downsampling, and the "up" ones will do better at minimizing artifacts generally apparent when performing (heavy) upsampling. For plain translation (parallel to the axes or not), any of them would work well; my hunch is that the "upsharp" ones would do better. > > If the difference between FastSharpUpsize and SharpUpsize is qualty then > it should not be named "Fast", > I take note. I also note that using a quality level parameter (inherited from calling operations or the "enviroment") may be the way to make the "fast" methods "invisible" to the users. ----- Thank you. Nicolas Robidoux Laurentian University _______________________________________________ Gegl-developer mailing list Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
