Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'd suggest adding a section to
the package description about what makes it different than gimp-dcraw.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:47:46 +0100, Matthias Urlichs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ari Pollak:
> > Isn't there already a gimp-dcraw package to do the exact same thing but
> > is more mature? Does UFRaw have any advantages over dcraw? Does it open
> > different kinds of images?
> >
> ufraw has a preview image and lots of options.
>
> gimp-dcraw is a bare-bones import without preview and with too few
> options -- using it is hit-and-miss and the results still require
> some postprocessing in the gimp.
>
> > > ufraw has lots of preprocessing options which seem to duplicate gimp's
> > > features. Unfortunatey, they are necessary because its 8-bit limitation
> > > would cause major quality problems.
> > >
> The bottom line is that gimp-dcraw is unuseable when you want to do a
> high-quality import; ufraw works.
>
> --
> Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
