Panther

Here everybody can post his problems with PhotoLine
Hangnail
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2003 03:19

Panther

Post by Hangnail » Tue 28 Oct 2003 17:39

I'm happy to say that there seems to be no issues as of yet with Panther. As a matter of fact, the browser pane seems more responsive. Directories that had the beachball spinning indefinately are working well.

Would still like the folder tree to stay expaned to the last directory. Is the PC version the same way or does it stay expanded?

Final question: Is there a way to do different re-sampling methods like bi-cubic, etc? Didn't see the option on the scale layer or scale document dialogs.

Todd

Martin Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 3472
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2002 15:49

Re: Panther

Post by Martin Huber » Fri 31 Oct 2003 11:06

Hangnail wrote:I'm happy to say that there seems to be no issues as of yet with Panther. As a matter of fact, the browser pane seems more responsive. Directories that had the beachball spinning indefinately are working well.

Would still like the folder tree to stay expaned to the last directory. Is the PC version the same way or does it stay expanded?
I added this to our wish list.
Hangnail wrote:Final question: Is there a way to do different re-sampling methods like bi-cubic, etc? Didn't see the option on the scale layer or scale document dialogs.

Todd
At the moment the interpolation method is always bi-cubic. Do you need bi-linear, too?

Martin

Hangnail
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2003 03:19

Re: Panther

Post by Hangnail » Wed 05 Nov 2003 03:18

Martin Huber wrote:
Hangnail wrote:I'm happy to say that there seems to be no issues as of yet with Panther. As a matter of fact, the browser pane seems more responsive. Directories that had the beachball spinning indefinately are working well.

Would still like the folder tree to stay expaned to the last directory. Is the PC version the same way or does it stay expanded?
I added this to our wish list.
Hangnail wrote:Final question: Is there a way to do different re-sampling methods like bi-cubic, etc? Didn't see the option on the scale layer or scale document dialogs.

Todd
At the moment the interpolation method is always bi-cubic. Do you need bi-linear, too?

Martin

Well, I've been comparing various outputs with photoshop (I have been 'dueling' with a co-worker). At first I noticed that when you reduce images to a fairly small size (around 120 pixels), photoshop results tend to be less 'blury'. My co-worker had her reduction settions set to bi-cubic so I was wondering if that was the reason. After some playing around I found out that with just a touch of the sharp filter I can get the exact same results as Photoshop so I wonder if they (adobe) do that automatically when they reduce an image size.

Martin Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 3472
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2002 15:49

Re: Panther

Post by Martin Huber » Wed 05 Nov 2003 12:58

Hangnail wrote:Well, I've been comparing various outputs with photoshop (I have been 'dueling' with a co-worker). At first I noticed that when you reduce images to a fairly small size (around 120 pixels), photoshop results tend to be less 'blury'. My co-worker had her reduction settions set to bi-cubic so I was wondering if that was the reason. After some playing around I found out that with just a touch of the sharp filter I can get the exact same results as Photoshop so I wonder if they (adobe) do that automatically when they reduce an image size.
There are different kinds of bicubic interpolations. All of them have certain advantages and disadvantages depending on the kind of image they are applied to and depending on whether the image is scaled down or up. And some bicubic functions have a built-in sharpening effect (which may be good or bad depending on the current circumstances).
Perhaps a possibility to choose between different interpolation methods would be reasonable.

Martin

Guest

Re: Panther

Post by Guest » Fri 07 Nov 2003 20:30

Martin Huber wrote:
Hangnail wrote:Well, I've been comparing various outputs with photoshop (I have been 'dueling' with a co-worker). At first I noticed that when you reduce images to a fairly small size (around 120 pixels), photoshop results tend to be less 'blury'. My co-worker had her reduction settions set to bi-cubic so I was wondering if that was the reason. After some playing around I found out that with just a touch of the sharp filter I can get the exact same results as Photoshop so I wonder if they (adobe) do that automatically when they reduce an image size.
There are different kinds of bicubic interpolations. All of them have certain advantages and disadvantages depending on the kind of image they are applied to and depending on whether the image is scaled down or up. And some bicubic functions have a built-in sharpening effect (which may be good or bad depending on the current circumstances).
Perhaps a possibility to choose between different interpolation methods would be reasonable.

Martin
I'm still new to the image processing world. My primary experience is in vector apps which don't have to worry about re-size as they are mathematical in nature. If having different rendering options gives an easy flexibility, I' m all for it ;). I would be just a satisified if I can get the same results with the tools already available (filters and such) ... if I only knew what to do ;)

P.S. Sorry it takes a bit to get back to the forum. Been a busy month!

Hangnail
Mitglied
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2003 03:19

Re: Panther

Post by Hangnail » Tue 11 Nov 2003 16:39

Anonymous wrote:
Martin Huber wrote:
Hangnail wrote:Well, I've been comparing various outputs with photoshop (I have been 'dueling' with a co-worker). At first I noticed that when you reduce images to a fairly small size (around 120 pixels), photoshop results tend to be less 'blury'. My co-worker had her reduction settions set to bi-cubic so I was wondering if that was the reason. After some playing around I found out that with just a touch of the sharp filter I can get the exact same results as Photoshop so I wonder if they (adobe) do that automatically when they reduce an image size.
There are different kinds of bicubic interpolations. All of them have certain advantages and disadvantages depending on the kind of image they are applied to and depending on whether the image is scaled down or up. And some bicubic functions have a built-in sharpening effect (which may be good or bad depending on the current circumstances).
Perhaps a possibility to choose between different interpolation methods would be reasonable.

Martin
I'm still new to the image processing world. My primary experience is in vector apps which don't have to worry about re-size as they are mathematical in nature. If having different rendering options gives an easy flexibility, I' m all for it ;). I would be just a satisified if I can get the same results with the tools already available (filters and such) ... if I only knew what to do ;)

P.S. Sorry it takes a bit to get back to the forum. Been a busy month!
This was actually my reply ... guess I forgot to login first ;)