Another round, using one of Rob's test images. The directly scaled images look sharper. >
I've now realized that our image scaler uses the -sharpen option in most cases (as long as the thumbnail is 0.85 times the size of the original or smaller, if I'm reading the code correctly). This time I applied -sharpen 0x0.8 to the right buckets in the chain (in this case every bucket except 4096) for a fairer comparison. And this time instead of a side by side, there are two pages, so that you can see the difference better by switching between tabs: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/109867/imagickchaining/2/a.html https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/109867/imagickchaining/2/b.html On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Erwin Dokter <er...@darcoury.nl> wrote: > On 01-05-2014 16:57, Gilles Dubuc wrote: > >> >> And here's a side-by-side comparison of these images generated with >> chaining and images that come from our regular image scalers: >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/109867/imagickchaining/index.html Try >> to guess which is which before inspecting the page for the answer :) >> > > Not much difference, but it's there. Progressive scaling loses edge detail > during each stage. The directly scaled images look sharper. > > > Regards, > -- > Erwin Dokter > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
