GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 410066
transformation tools cause offsets
Last modified: 2007-04-26 06:49:47 UTC
As explained in bug #167956, there is a (-1,-1) drift per transform measured in destination coords. This should be investigated and fixed.
copying my last post in the now defunct bug #167956 that summarises the drifts: NB do not confuse rotation bugs and scaling bugs, this is separate code. hmm, still some very small drifts on lin/cub/lancz . If I create at the centre of a blank canvas a 10x10 "circle" - actually a stepped octogon - and rotate 6 x 15 degs it drops precisely one pixel. This will enevitably be contibuting to the spreading of the graphic itself and hence adding some blurring. More importantly NONE is behaving badly. It girates about some slightly off-centre point and ends up +4px in X after the 6 rotations. There is heavy and asymetrical distortion of the basic shape. Clearly any distortion should be symetrical. This again probably comes down to an offset, although apparently larger, which fairs badly due to crudity of nearest neighbour "interpolation".
I fail to see how rotation and scaling is different code. Both the Rotate tool and the Scale tool are derived from the same base class and use the same code to perform the transformation. Or is this not correct?
gimpdrawable-transform.c scale-func.c
scale-funcs.c is not used by the transform tools.
indeed, please refer to bug #433241 for scaling issues here for transform issues.
What we are asking for is that you add a meaningful description to bug reports. It doesn't help to talk about scaling because there are multiple ways in GIMP to scale things. gg, again you managed to ruin a bug report with your comments. Could you please consider to think before adding comments to our bug-tracker?
OK here we go again, Sven makes a fool of himself by posting in ignorance, starts screaming at others then most likely closes the bug as being off topic to hide his ill-thought out comments from view. If you "consider to think" before posting from the hip , actually try to understand the posts of others or maybe in an extreme case consult the code before posting "I fail to see how rotation and scaling is different code" this one would already be a lot shorter and would still be at #2. If you were able to live by the standards you demand from everyone else YOUR bugzilla would be a lot smaller and more use to everyone. I'll ignore the rest of your dumb flame bait.
I don't really think that Sven is the only one who does have some problems with your bug reports. Maybe you should choose a different place to discuss them before filing them?
This is Sven's bug so I dont understand why he or anyone else is commenting on my (unspecified) bug reports here. If there is a specific critisism to be made of a specific bug it would be more use to post it there not here. My sole contribution here was precisely to add information about the specific issue mentioned in the title since Sven had incorrectly copied (-1,-1) comment from the other bug because he did not realise the code was split. In #5 I further take to trouble to clarify where the other bug is to clarify for anyone reading where to look for the two versions of the code. Both of those would seem to be well informed and useful contributions in a neutral language. I fail to see why that drew any critisism. The rest of this mess is not of my doing.
Ok, let's start a fresh one then (bug #433436). And please, when adding comments there, try to write them in a way that can be understood by anyone who might be interested in fixing it. The point of a bug-tracker is that it should be possible for others to understand the bug reports and to help fixing them.
>> And please, when adding comments there, try to write them in a way that can be understood by anyone who might be interested in fixing it. The point of a bug-tracker is that it should be possible for others to understand the bug reports and to help fixing them. >> OK , I have prepared an image, which you could as easily have done from the very explicit steps I outlined. But your comment above still contains some implicit backhand critisism of my earlier post as being incomprehensible. Whereas to me they seems clear and concise. To avoid me being doubly guilty and messing up (IYHO) yet another bug could you please explain simply , clearly and without sarcasm what was wrong with my earlier posts so that I may provide appropriate comments in the future?
Have a look at comment #5 for example. That's not even a complete sentence and since it is missing a comma, its meaning is ambiguous. Your comments usually assume that the reader knows the issue and can read your mind. It is not obvious that "scaling" refers to the "Image->Scale Image" or "Layer->Scale Layer" actions or that "transform" means the transform tools. It would help a lot if you could start a bug report with a detailed description of how to reproduce the problem. It would also help if you try to stay on-topic. If a discussion is needed, then it should be had on the mailing-list. We should try to keep bug reports as concise as possible. Just the facts. You say in comment #9 that this is my bug report. Yes, I created it. But only because, for several weeks, you ignored my request to open a separate bug report. So at some point I took the liberty of doing it for you.