tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275903.post116426067303789462..comments2007-03-16T23:11:17.897-07:00Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00058296587455402398noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275903.post-1165394418086222052006-12-06T00:40:00.000-08:002006-12-06T00:40:00.000-08:00Most bicubic resamplers have negative lobes - no problem at all having a better kernel!<BR/><BR/>A Lanczos filter actually does a good job at edges and upsampling - mad good sharpness and beautiful smooth images when you upsample.<BR/><BR/>Without negative lobes, you just aren't going to get anything but BLUR. For example, even the widest b-spline will just make edges blurry, much blurrier than they need to be.<BR/><BR/>My resampler, of course, is programmable with about a dozen different kernels.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00058296587455402398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275903.post-1164836585485923242006-11-29T13:43:00.000-08:002006-11-29T13:43:00.000-08:00Ahhh!!! Lanczos-3!!! are you CRAZY? what about those negative lobes??!?<BR/><BR/>On the other (er, serious) side - yeah, people generally like "soft". Which has always made me wonder... when looking at image compression and perception - there's a reconstruction/sampling vs. compression ratio graph that I've always wondered about... <BR/><BR/>that is, are you better off with more compression or more resolution - meaning, would you get a smaller (file size) picture of some X quality by (a) compressing less at lower res and upsampling nicely on decompress, (b) compress "at res" at some medium setting or (c) compressing a LOT at higher res and downsampling nicely at decompress? <BR/><BR/>JPEG's got a lot of artifacting....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com