From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Third Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Image transformation filter for upscaled images Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 21:27:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: <871rcpo3nm.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39750"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Evgeny Zajcev , Stefan Kangas , emacs-devel To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , g@idiocy.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 08 22:29:48 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lJNRj-000AG3-V3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 22:29:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48698 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJNRi-0002nR-Ue for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 16:29:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJNPO-0007of-Gn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 16:27:22 -0500 Original-Received: from outbound.soverin.net ([2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::218]:38807) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJNPK-0000VB-JY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 16:27:21 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78F96600F5; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 21:27:08 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.142]) by soverin.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=idiocy.org; s=soverin; t=1615238827; bh=8pf+Rb90ZHhxvr1Hq52tap+lbHXy9Os+gH0BZ4EpwyY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nh2fTsfByDWA+TR+KMruZz8NulSVtFE1bbqDoQ4uR1oXgaJEaA1Gl8YDbSWVCMt7G 7ZudnKwO99u+Wf+ExjLNAfVCovyCBUPrUM/8qkZWn2Vx8Fr3UPomHNcInqQ7csM8H+ sjmi9/xyVQOSY/23Lz8QIntrmkTxn3Z/AeuqsiRdBtT1KBDkNA+nzZC68v2ZSJRkEf KMkCBlUN+go+WIVXrDibqpmiUcsSj0g/+moDnXTJiyA1lQFNaqYdIK8E+ygLSZaUg5 MSupomFr1pXTyrt7rdK8V6CJ+qn47xpCxBwIzLjQ8jeto/mOgwb4Bkdcya0Ez2q5GE fq9TUjbSCiK1A== Original-Received: by breton.holly.idiocy.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id 98172202AD3E16; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 21:27:03 +0000 (GMT) Mail-Followup-To: Alan Third , Lars Ingebrigtsen , g@idiocy.org, Evgeny Zajcev , Stefan Kangas , emacs-devel Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871rcpo3nm.fsf@gnus.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::218; envelope-from=alan@idiocy.org; helo=outbound.soverin.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:266222 Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 08:18:21PM +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Alan Third writes: > > > I don't feel strongly about this. Can someone try the "best" filter > > and see if good is an improvement over it? We use best for scaling > > down, so if we're happy with best for scaling up then we can just > > remove the code that sets it completely. Or go with good across the > > board, but best is, y'know, better. ;) > > The problem is that icons that are scaled up look like fuzzy messes when > scaled up with "best", I think? But scaling up text does indeed look > kinda bad when using the current method. Indeed, and I doubt they look much better using good, either. > Text images are usually large, while icons are usually small, so we > could use some heuristic for switching between the methods. I don't know, I'd be inclined to go with adding an image option, like ":filter smooth" or ":filter nearest" and letting mode authors choose what they think is best. Although I can see that that won't help with the likes of eww where you just don't know what type of image you're loading. (Also, I think :filter may be taken, so perhaps just ":smooth t/nil" or something...) -- Alan Third