>Irfaview is much, much faster! :-) karl That one little statement is the deciding factor for many. On further thought, I'm a bit surprised by this test as a test. "If I were gonna do it" ... Firstly, the test images would be available as TIFFs for download. Second, the image fragments would be identically sized and cropped. Since jpeg is essential, random choices of which bits to show could have visible differences. Third: probably I'd start with a source image, downsize it and use that as the starting point. that way, the fidelity of the results to a "true" starting point could be seen - or even measured quantitatively. (err, can think of some technical probs) Looking at the full scalers there are some wierd effects. Do these have any relevance after the image has been through a printer? How does a printer's internal rescale compare? lots to think about ... but the fastest will alwas be the best to most ... Bob -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
