W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [css3-images] image-rendering property for contrast-preserving image upscaling

From: Gregg Tavares (wrk) <gman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:13:30 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimFcmDS+5kPMsngWK8Bkwr881+BiXNnNhEpwoOj@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, public-fx@w3.org
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Gimme a name for the new value and I'll add it to Image Values.
>>
>
> I think sometimes authors explicitly want nearest-neighbour (e.g. to expose
> the pixel data of an image, perhaps in an editor), so we might want to
> provide 'nearest-neighbor' explicitly.
>
> For what James described as "optimize-contrast", maybe "optimize-contrast"
> is the best name. Or maybe "preserve-contrast".


I agree. I don't understand "optimize-contrast"

Does that mean If I have 5 pixels black,red,blue,green,white and I scale to
10 pixels I'll get

black,black,red,redish-purple,bluish-purple,blue,blueish-green,green,white,white
since by some definitions there is no contrast between red,green,blue so
those would be blended

Why not just say "nearest-neighbor" if that's the effect people are asking
for?


>
>
> Rob
> --
> "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
> they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
> every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
>
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 02:14:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 December 2010 02:14:02 GMT