From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Image transformation filter for upscaled images Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 18:12:43 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23939"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Evgeny Zajcev , emacs-devel To: Alan Third Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 08 00:13:36 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 1lJ2ae-00068d-C2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 00:13:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34902 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJ2ad-0007Kb-EV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 18:13:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51524) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJ2Zw-0006qy-UX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 18:12:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:55530) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJ2Zs-0002YH-7Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 18:12:52 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AB49780B63; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 18:12:46 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D3038009E; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 18:12:45 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1615158765; bh=E8l0XE/CxjWokE1rQ9toRw5waEYe18rYsvlFf/5uYAA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UUaqfNSZ6SUQHb9QB06oNG7yHLgKAemyotudj2xLu7t+Zq19FB9bemFZNCC8+tUQ+ K+yaIbTi1eNkIPJPDBG0TMcsm4ITmhj2Ckvx12tc45lFo0iMQLA4sfadpyWxrckF9X Qgf0RGqXrjgSMsHe0xaTThoTUHWx8ap8qQAgdD/9oOg0BnA7f1Q0qADle0UB5l3q9T zRN0URHPnmSoR7+ThIeS4Ktx5N8jpDR5b/CrUWnaVqxv4rjEQRZ2JA0v7lL9B0n09A 5bIHZZPXTRK3U3Cy12AF9Rm5a5Z47M+dxtZ/AkvK33gyVGGk2WuPxAB3uy3lx0Ueaw FtO/rPIEbFtEA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AEBC1202BB; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 18:12:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Third's message of "Sun, 7 Mar 2021 20:45:59 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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:266152 Archived-At: > See also bug#38394. > > The reason nearest was chosen was because scaled up pixel art (emojis, > mostly, like etc/images/smilies/wry.xpm) looked abominable when using > the "best" filter, but most other types of images look OK when using > nearest. On the other hand the bug report complains that scaled up > pixel art looks abominable with nearest, so clearly there's a > difference of opinion. > > I don't know whether "good" is a better compromise, I suspect it looks > quite like "best". > > I don't know what the best option is, I suspect there's no clear > one-size-fits-all winning strategy. FWIW, I think there is no perfect solution, and I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to give much control to the end user. So I'd go for the solution which minimizes the frequency of terrible results. I'd vote for "good" (my experience is mostly with doc-view where I've found the current "nearest" to be rather poor), but it's not a strong vote. Stefan