Hello David: > I notice the 'Gamma' versions of these enlargers introduce haloing > around some edges, while the non-gamma versions do not (or it's too > little to see). A naive conversion may be the cause of this > difference. If you could utilize the profile attached to the image, > and generate or load a linear one, you could use LittleCMS to do the > conversion in an assuredly correct way. The main weaknesses of "our" methods are: --haloing (but they have less haloing than Lanczos) --aliasing (but IBFNBQH shows less, although still more than Lanczos, which is more blurry) --memory usage (an temporary int16 "copy" of the input image has to be created) Although I have hunches, I still do not understand perfectly how icc profiles affect enlargement artifacts. (This being said, a monotone method, like nearest neighbour, bilinear or non-interpolatory B-splines, should not be affected much by gamma obliviousness; bicubic, Lanczos, EANBQH and IBFNBQH are NOT monotone.) This is something I'll have to experiment with. Thank you for your comments, Nicolas Robidoux _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
