Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2547049, member: 1892&quot;]The reason I use the Gimp is not because it&#039;s basic, but because it&#039;s by a wide margin the most sophisticated graphics software available in the public domain. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>The trouble with software correction of optical errors is that it involves interpolation. The software basically moves pixels to the places it believes those pixels should be. That&#039;s fine when your field of view is measure in meters, but we measure FoV in <b>millimeters </b>and, by necessity, individual pixel placement is vital to what we do. Interpolation doesn&#039;t work so well at that level; it&#039;s why, when reducing size, we try to stay within mathematical multiples to reduce the amount of interpolation required. The Gimp has_no_clue where the pixels *should* be. Perspective interpolation wouldn&#039;t work if you wanted to study individual bricks on a building, either.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m aware the Gimp is capable of correcting perspective. Never used it, never will. Given the importance of pixel-level accuracy in our discipline, it&#039;s more efficient to use technique which makes such postprocessing unnecessary, and I don&#039;t trust the results when applied to someone else&#039;s work.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in