No. almost all the information it provides is trivial to calculate.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM, dorai iyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a pdb that uses measure tool?
>
> ___
> Gimp-user mailing list
> Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> h
Is there a pdb that uses measure tool?
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 15:17 +0100, norman wrote:
> > I forgot to say that the JPEG is sharper than the RAW conversion.
>
> Most cameras do some sort of pre-processing which usually involves
> sharpening the ima
How would you use GIMP to create an image containing
(poorly) hidden letters or numbers?
I'll explain:
Take a look at this image:
http://www.sesameworkshop.org//uploaded-images/1211/0-0.gif
This is an image used in a little game at
sesamestreet.com. The idea is that children click on
the camoufl
hello,
are there any tethered shooting plugins available for the gimp?
it seems to be something that's missing?
i have tried gtkam-gimp but it doesnt directly display the image after
it is captured - also it seems a bit buggy?
i've also tried gphoto2 to capture from command line but would love it
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 15:17 +0100, norman wrote:
> I forgot to say that the JPEG is sharper than the RAW conversion.
Most cameras do some sort of pre-processing which usually involves
sharpening the image. One of the main points of using raw images is that
no such pre-processing is done.
Sv
> Could it be that your camera sharpened the JPEG quite aggressively and you
> did
> not sharpen the result of the RAW conversion?
That could very well be the reason. I had forgotten that there is
sharpening going in the camera with JPEG which, of course, does not
happen with RAW.
Norman
___
If it is a common case, not some particular image, the difference is
obvious: in-camera image processing includes noise reduction (blurring)
and sharpening. The resulting image look and feel is a result of
combination of NR and sharpening, acting in contrary directions. If you
use UFRaw for RAW
Could it be that your camera sharpened the JPEG quite aggressively and you did
not sharpen the result of the RAW conversion?
Am Sonntag 30 März 2008 16:17:07 schrieb norman:
> I forgot to say that the JPEG is sharper than the RAW conversion.
>
> Norman
>
>
Okay, in that case I have no idea what is happening there.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:47 AM, norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot to say that the JPEG is sharper than the RAW conversion.
>
>
>
> Norman
>
> ___
> Gimp-user mailing list
> Gimp-
Hi norman,
It certainly is possible -- I assume your jpeg is the blurry one, and
both pictures were taken with a tripod so no chance of accidental blur
-- then it's a matter of what quality you have it set to - on my
camera it needs to be Fine or better.; For RAW, that kind of option is
irrelevant
I forgot to say that the JPEG is sharper than the RAW conversion.
Norman
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Unless my eyes deceive me I can see quite a difference in sharpness
between an image saved by the camera as a JPEG and the same subject
converted from RAW taken at the same time. Perhaps someone could tell me
whether this is possible or are my eyes being deceived by some other
difference between th
Seems pretty simple to me. I agree they didn't explain in a friendly way.
C is the result. easy. It's per-channel. That is, for 'Darken', the
resulting value in a given channel is either A[channel] or B[channel]
depending on which of A and B's value for that channel is lower.
For example
if
A = #
14 matches
Mail list logo
