Re: scaling images with Script-Fu

["David Kotchen" <dtkotchen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- 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/