On Wed 2. April 2003 19:07, you wrote:
> But are you starting with an image of 1024x1024 or higher? If you try
> to edit at the final resolution, you really can't avoid seeing
> aliasing artifacts. Everything has to be done in a giant buffer and
> then downsampled as the very last step.
I am star
Martin Dressler wrote:
> So it mean that gimp use bad antialiasing or render lines in some
> bad way. Because Gimp scale with the same quality as ImageMagic.
But are you starting with an image of 1024x1024 or higher? If you try
to edit at the final resolution, you really can't avoid seeing
alias
> I have one more question. Is it posible and how to specify color in
> postscript by RGB components?
Have you looked at the language specification?
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/pdfs/tn/PLRM.pdf
In case it's not in the core language, it should be trivial to define
your own comman
On Mon 31. March 2003 19:53, you wrote:
> Martin Dressler wrote:
> > I made some investigations in last days and find why my textures look
> > so bad when scaled down to 128x128 textures compared to textures
> > generated by perl scripts (writen by Andy?)
>
> Uh, once upon a time, yeah. They're te
Martin Dressler wrote:
> I made some investigations in last days and find why my textures look
> so bad when scaled down to 128x128 textures compared to textures
> generated by perl scripts (writen by Andy?)
Uh, once upon a time, yeah. They're terrible hacks; not exactly my
best work. :)
> The p
Hi,
I made some investigations in last days and find why my textures look so bad
when scaled down to 128x128 textures compared to textures generated by perl
scripts (writen by Andy?) The problem isn't in scaling, because these scripts
scale down too, but the diference is in how gimp render line
