Bill Hilton wrote:
>>Rhus wrote
>>
>>would the image detail loss be more pronounced if the ratio of
>>downsizing was not easily divisible by 2, for example:
>>1. I have an image 2048 pixels wide and resize it to 1024 pixels wide
>>2. I have an image 2048 pixels wide and resize it to 970 pixels wide
>
> For this case, where you're not downsampling very much, it shouldn't
> matter.
>
> If you have CS use the 'bicubic sharper' option.
>
> Sometimes if you are *really* downsampling, like say a 10,000 pixel per
> side scan down to say a web thumbnail of 75 pixels you'll be better off
> downsampling in steps, but for small percentages you likely won't see
> any difference.
>
> And as Brian implied, sometimes you should do it both ways and compare
> since under some conditions you'll see differences.
I have a related question which I intended to ask for a while, but held back
because I still use GIMP 1.2. Why is it that when down-sizing (scaling) an
image, I get a slight blurring effect? Is it just me? Is it something I can
(and should) expect?
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
