rurmonas@senet.com.au
Date: 12/02/02-09:41:13 AM Z
Quoting Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>:
> This came up on the list before, and the general consensus seemed to be
> that it's better to go up in steps. Would one (or all) of you mavens
> please explain why that's better than going up at once? I'm NOT
> doubting, but curious... except puleese, simple if possible, not to
> demoralize the digitally deficient.
Judy,
Theoretically it is better to go up in one step. However this would
require the interpolation program to be optimised for the particular
amount of interpolation (e.g. optimised for a 2.5x size increase).
The more common programs are optimised for a smaller size increase.
It is thus better to go up in several smaller steps (using near
optimum size increases) than one big step (well away from optimum).
Richard
--- Richard Urmonas rurmonas@senet.com.au ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through SE Net Webmail http://webmail.senet.com.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:25 AM Z CST