Hi,
GSR / FR wrote:
> I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
> it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
> importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
> 100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is what I
> normally see, not 40000 pix or people with one pixel painted as
> 128*128 screen pixels. I also did not liked that it quickly went to
> fractional numbers in which one of X:Y is not 1, cos it does not look
> very pleasing due the fast way Gimp interpolates when displaying.
I like the idea of special-casing near-100% ratios (and so does
Alan Horkan, from what I can tell from the bug he submitted
recently). A LUT is a good way to go for them too, I think.
There are some issues with the patch, though. I don't really get
what's happenning in the if (src == 1 && dest == 1) clause, and
I'm not sure completely reverting the old change is the way to
go.
Perhaps it might be an idea to have some smallish set of presets
which are favoured as is suggested in bug 124073 - something from
say 8:1 to 1:8, which would cover most common usages, but with
zooming allowed outside that range, using the new continued
fractions algorithm and a sqrt(2) zoom factor.
> Help welcomed about how to make it work with typical optimization
> level. Comments about the presets also welcomed, I just made a list of
> the ones that seemed interesting while working always around some
> given factor.
I would go for
12.5% 18% 20% 25% 33% 50% 75% 100% 150% 200% 300% 400% 600%
That gives you a smallish set of presets, with extra focus around
100%, and outside that you let her fly with the newer algorithm.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
