Re: [Gimp-developer] Cubic Interpolation vs No Halo

[C R <cajhne gmail com>]

Thanks Liam. I suppose this will work okay for my purpose. Thanks for the
tip.

-C
On 27 Apr 2016 6:09 pm, "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam holoweb net> wrote:

> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 09:03 +0100, C R wrote:
> > I assume the reasoning behind using cubic as the default for all the
> > scale
> > and transform tools is to cut back on the complaints of how slow GIMP
> > is at
> > the moment, but the quality loss in the current cubic interpolation
> > algorithm is quite bad.
>
> It depends on what you're doing - in some cases Cubic gives better
> results. In addition nohalo and lohalo can take several minutes to
> scale an image.
>
> You can change the default tool option in preferences/tool options.
>
> > Also, it's probably safe to assume that if the user chooses an
> > interpolation type in the tool, they are saying something about the
> > quality of the results they are after vs speed. I think setting the
> > value in one tool should set the value automatically in other tools,
> > and treat it as a "global" value of sorts.
>
> I'd rather see it moved out of tool options and into preferences with a
> single setting in that case. In practice I fairly often copy a small
> section of an image and experiment with a cobination of blur and
> different downsizing algorithms. In addition, more upscaling options
> would be good, maybe after 2.10 - waifu2x, if unencumbered, would be a
> good candidate. So I think having the algorithm choice right there in
> scale image makes experimentation easier, and helps people dscover the
> option.
>
> So maybe a preference to say the default would be good. And hey! there
> is one :-)
>
> Liam
>
> --
> Liam R. E. Quin <liam holoweb net>