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 UTC