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
Panther
-
- Entwickler
- Beiträge: 4159
- Registriert: Di 19 Nov 2002 15:49
Re: Panther
I added this to our wish list.Hangnail hat geschrieben: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?
At the moment the interpolation method is always bi-cubic. Do you need bi-linear, too?Hangnail hat geschrieben: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
-
- Mitglied
- Beiträge: 29
- Registriert: Sa 11 Okt 2003 03:19
Re: Panther
Martin Huber hat geschrieben:I added this to our wish list.Hangnail hat geschrieben: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?
At the moment the interpolation method is always bi-cubic. Do you need bi-linear, too?Hangnail hat geschrieben: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
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.
-
- Entwickler
- Beiträge: 4159
- Registriert: Di 19 Nov 2002 15:49
Re: Panther
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).Hangnail hat geschrieben: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.
Perhaps a possibility to choose between different interpolation methods would be reasonable.
Martin
Re: Panther
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 doMartin Huber hat geschrieben: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).Hangnail hat geschrieben: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.
Perhaps a possibility to choose between different interpolation methods would be reasonable.
Martin
P.S. Sorry it takes a bit to get back to the forum. Been a busy month!
-
- Mitglied
- Beiträge: 29
- Registriert: Sa 11 Okt 2003 03:19
Re: Panther
This was actually my reply ... guess I forgot to login firstAnonymous hat geschrieben: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 doMartin Huber hat geschrieben: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).Hangnail hat geschrieben: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.
Perhaps a possibility to choose between different interpolation methods would be reasonable.
Martin
P.S. Sorry it takes a bit to get back to the forum. Been a busy month!