On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Elle Stone <ellestone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Agreeing with what you say, I've tried lohalo and never saw any reason to > use it instead of nohalo. For several years now nohalo is the only > downsizing method that I use. > > I see in the git log that some changes have been made recently to nohalo. I > haven't used the new version of nohalo, and also haven't added these changes > to my "CCE" version of GIMP. The reason I mention this is because even > though nohalo (the older version of nohalo) is slow, it produces results > that are exceptionally good. > > The recent GEGL commit 0b0ecbb67198d6318ed163522e5233ecbc18ff25 mentions > slightly sharper results for nohalo: "for sigificant downsampling this might > result in sharper/aliased results". > > This "sharper/aliased results" doesn't sound like a good thing, at least not > for my particular workflow. I don't use a lot of sharpening in my workflow, > and I prefer to do any required post-downsizing sharpening by hand, using > masks and layers, and using either unsharp mask or high pass sharpening, on > an image by image basis. > > Would there be the possibility of parameters with the revised nohalo that > would allow to replicate the old results? This is what an adaptively increasing the OFFSET0 constant for significant downscaling in the sources might achieve - do note that what is meant by significant downscaling here is when scaling down to below 1% of original size - even in such scenarios nohalo will already be doing a good job. I believe that even without further enhancement we should use nohalo as the default sampler. /pippin _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
