[Klug-general] gimp rotation sequence layers duplication

[Thomas Edward Groves]

I agree but I learned years ago that making two points
at the same time just dilutes both.
So you're quite right: minimise the processing to
avoid the image degenerating to mush.

Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Evans <mike at tandem.f9.co.uk>
To: <kent at mailman.lug.org.uk>
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Klug-general] gimp rotation sequence layers duplication


> I like your thinking Tom.  Actually it might even work using the
> transparent pixel, which is what it generally pads with - if you had a
> rule that it is OK to throw transparent pixels away so that you don't
> need to enlarge the image to keep them, only to keep non-transparent ones.
>
> One thing though: James is probably better off going with the solution
> John recommended, starting with the original image and adding 15 to the
> rotation amount each time.  The reason for this is that rotating an
> image will require some interpolation of pixels to get back onto the
> grid of pixels.  If you then rotate that there will be interpolation of
> the interpolation and so on, causing progressive degradation of the
> image.  Unless that is something wanted for artistic effect it would be
> better to start from the original each time.
>
> On 06/02/16 07:57, Thomas Edward Groves wrote:
> > Thinking about this one:
> > if the Gimp had the concept of a 'virtual' or 'nonexistent' pixel
> > that is one on which NO operation was to be carried out
> > then it could pad out rotations with such and avoid this kind
> > of mess.
> > Of course that would mean a new file format.
> > Hmm.
> > Probably not going to happen.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kent mailing list
> Kent at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/kent