Claus Berghammer wrote: > Hello Gimp Users and Developers, > > This is a follow up of Bug 557950 (which in fact isn't a bug, according to > Sven Neumann ;-) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557950 > > As described in the “Bug”, scaling in Gimp 2.6 series is far slower, than it > was in 2.4. Sven Neumann commented: > > “We have completely changed the scaling implementation. The new algorithm is > slower for some cases, but that is not a bug.” > > Since there is no explanation WHY the algorithm was rewritten, I guess 2 > possible reasons: > > 1.)The old code did something wrong in some cases > 2.)The new code was necessary due to GEGL integration > > For the first point, I compared scaling results from 2.4 and 2.6, and they > are (ignoring some harmless alignment issues) 100% identical (using > difference blend mode). I also cannot remember, that in the past years, the > scaling routine in Gimp produced noticeable wrong results. (Beside the > lanczos interpolation, that didn't work right, when it was introduced) > > So my question is, isn't it possible, to have both algorithms in Gimp, and > let the user decide which one he wants to use? (Option in Scale Dialog) > > If it was due to point 2, the GEGL integration, than can we expect a faster > version of the new scaling routine? Or will it be automatically faster, when > GEGL is integrated more/better? > > The current situation draws some users (not myself) to not use Gimp 2.6, and > stick with 2.4 instead, because the difference in speed is so dramatically. > > Sincerely, Claus Berghammer >
I'd be curious to see some benchmarks comparing 2.4 and 2.6 in this regard so that we know just how dramatically different the speed is. Eric P. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
