Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP and multiple processors

2005-03-01 Thread Daniel Egger
On 01.03.2005, at 16:42, GSR - FR wrote: "GSR" (?) already gave such an example. It might be worth considering only supersampling when the end of a segment is a different color than the start of the next one. Supersampling is to avoid aliasing, which is not caused only by those discontinuities bu

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP and multiple processors

2005-03-01 Thread Jay Cox
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 22:48 +0100, Daniel Egger wrote: > On 01.03.2005, at 16:42, GSR - FR wrote: > > >> "GSR" (?) already gave such an example. > >> It might be worth considering only supersampling when the end of a > >> segment is > >> a different color than the start of the next one. > > > S

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP and multiple processors

2005-03-02 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, Daniel Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just played around with the blend tool on a 100x100px image and > looked very closely for any artifacts with and without > supersampling. The result was that I couldn't produce any visible > aliasing effects no matter how hard I try other than by u

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP and multiple processors

2005-03-02 Thread Daniel Egger
On 02.03.2005, at 13:29, Sven Neumann wrote: Sorry, but I don't see your point. It has been show that supersampling makes sense for some corner cases. It is off by default and users can activate it in case they run into one of the corner cases. Of course it could be faster but where's your problem?

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP and multiple processors

2005-03-02 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, Daniel Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No problem on this side of the wire other then that is feature > is counterintuitive, slow, undocumented and pretty much useless > for the blend tool except for deliberate cases. I agree that it is slow, but it is certainly not counterintuitive, it