On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 03:50:17PM +0200, a.l.e wrote: > > this might lead some people to check the scribus output multiple times > (mostly with non professional tools) and give too much weight to the result > from that software, software that has proven to be very solid for them but > fails at the small advanced and very specific details that matter here. > (i mean, imagemagik is a good software that shines in every task i throw at > it! it must be right, when it reports to me the total ink density... and > indeeds it does its calculations right, if there was not a small detail that > makes the result wrong in this very context!)
So there is a bug in Imagemagick, in which case I presume it was reported, or Imagemagick was being misused, and therefore the results were misleading? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
