--- In script-fu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "David Kotchen" <dtkotchen@xxxx> wrote: > > --- In script-fu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "lasm.rm" <lasm@xxxx> wrote: > > > > --- In script-fu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "David Kotchen" <dtkotchen@xxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > I have been playing around with the "gimp-drawable-transform-scale" > > > procedure and have written some simple scripts. However, I cannot > > seem > > > to match the defaults given by "gimp-image-scale". I thought that > > > these two commands would produce the same result: > > > > > > (gimp-drawable-transform-scale (car (gimp-image-get-active-drawable > > > theImage)) 0 0 568 426 0 1 0 3 0) > > > > > > (gimp-image-scale theImage 568 426) > > > > > > I believe that I have the correct "default" values plugged into the > > > first procedure above. > > > > > > I have posted the same image produced by each of these procedures > > here: > > > http://www.stop-the-madness.net/GimpScale/ScaledImageTest.html > > > > > > The full scripts for each are also posted on the web page. > > > > > > There are significant differences between the two images. In > > > particular, the image produced by "gimp-image-scale" is smoother > > and > > > has a smaller file size. > > > > > > What accounts for the difference between the two? Are the "default" > > > values that I have plugged into "gimp-drawable-transform-scale" not > > > the default values used in "gimp-image-scale"? Or is there > > something > > > included in "gimp-image-scale" that is not reflected in > > > "gimp-drawable-transform-scale"? > > > > > > (By the way, if it is at all helpful, the original image is posted > > here: > > > http://www.stop-the-madness.net/GimpScale/IMG_1322.jpg > > > It's large: 2.1 MB) > > > > > > I'd be grateful for any thoughts on this. Many thanks! > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > I am not sure if this helps, but browsing throught the PDB > > Browser, i saw a series of default provided by the same author, > > so you can use gimp-drawable-transform-scale-default, > > instead of gimp-drawable-transform-scale. The default > > seems to use no interpolation according to documentation. > > > > lasm > > > > lasm, > > Thanks for your reply. Do you know how "supersampling" and > "recursion_level" work and what they do? (These are among the > parameters required for gimp-drawable-transform-scale.) > For that matter, is there anybody out there who can describe in plain English how interpolation, supersampling, and recursion level work when scaling an image? I have searched high and low and cannot find a description of this. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/e4wwlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/script-fu/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: script-fu-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
