Hi, On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 09:45 +0100, peter@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I have limitted time right now but I'll try to have a look in the next few > days, though I dont follow your logic. If you have a look at it now, be warned that there's a bug in the pixel-surround routines which I introduced two days ago. I am aware of the bug and I will either fix it over the next days or revert some optimizations. So please don't wonder about artefacts at the bottom of the source area, these are due to this bug. > The reason this is optimised like > this is because there is NO NEED for any fancy techniques since it's a > one-to-one mapping. Is it really always a one-to-one mapping? I might be wrong but this seems to be dependant on the choice of the center of rotation and I am not sure if correctly check for this. > I did start to look into this a while back but ran out of time. One source > of error I noted was that the code splits all transforms into an origin > and offset coordinates for just about all operations. Many of these are > done with the origin at the image centre. This means two truncations , two > rounding errors. Sounds like we should investigate this further. Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
