Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:27 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote: > > >> You're absolutely right. This discussion is pointless. If you suggest >> that a script for scaling down in several steps is a valid solution you >> know as much about image manipulation as I do about coding. So don't >> waste each other's time. >> I'd be happy if you choose to listen to the users, even if they can't >> make a patch. But since the first time I was here, I see the same: every >> suggestion a user makes, you almost call him stupid. >> > > First of all, I didn't call you or anyone else stupid. Second, this is a > developer list. If you want to make a user suggestion without going into > implementation details, then please use the gimp-user mailing-list for > that. > > The point you raised is handled in our bug-tracker and it was high on > the priority list for 2.4. Unfortunately it has not been resolved yet. > As a member of the gimp-developer list, I expect you to know that. > There is not much point in bringing it up again since that is not likely > going to help. That's why I call this a pointless discussion for the > developer list. > > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-developer mailing list > Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer > > > I can't seem to find the associated bug. Does anybody know which is the bug report? I've got a test version (for scale-funcs.c) that scales down in reducing the image 1/4 each step. Between each step a the image is blurred before starting the next reduce cycle. The final step performs a bilinear interpolation. 1000 x 1000 => blur (3x3 gauss) => 500 x 500 => blur (3x3 gauss) => 250x250 => bilinear interpolation => 200x200 Geert _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
