On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:38:45PM +0100, Nick Lamb wrote: > I suspect that choosing a non-integer implementation (which might be > faster on modern Intel hardware) would increase the damage from > subsequent cycles, but I've never tested that. Have now, it makes no difference, so that's another factor eliminated. In fact, the integer code seems to produce the same image data as the float code, unless Gimp's JPEG UI doesn't work how I think it does. Nick.
- Re: Gimp Wishes (efficient trivial wishes) Christopher W. Curtis
- Re: Gimp Wishes (efficient trivial wishes) Marc Lehmann
- Re: Gimp Wishes (efficient trivial wishes) Steinar H. Gunderson
- Re: Gimp Wishes (efficient trivial wishes) Marc Lehmann
- Re: Gimp Wishes (efficient trivial wishes) Daniel . Egger
- Re: Gimp Wishes (efficient trivial wishes) Marc Lehmann
- Re: Gimp Wishes (i18n and jpeg) Stanislav Brabec
- Re: Gimp Wishes (i18n and jpeg) Marc Lehmann
- Re: Gimp Wishes (i18n and jpeg) Ian Boreham
- Re: Gimp Wishes (i18n and jpeg) Nick Lamb
- Re: Gimp Wishes (i18n and jpeg... Nick Lamb
- Re: Gimp Wishes (i18n and ... Steinar H. Gunderson
- Re: Gimp Wishes (jpeg) Stanislav Brabec
- Re: Gimp Wishes (jpeg) Marc Lehmann
- JPEG correction (was Re: Gimp Wishes) Nick Lamb
- Re: JPEG correction (was Re: Gimp Wishes) Marc Lehmann
- Re: JPEG correction (was Re: Gimp Wishe... Nick Lamb
- Re: JPEG correction (was Re: Gimp W... Marc Lehmann
- Re: JPEG correction (was Re: G... Jon Winters
- Improved Export behaviour ... Nick Lamb
- Re: Improved Export behavi... Sven Neumann