This would work although it would still be a bit rough. It would look far
better than if the enlargment is *not* a multiple of the bitmap.
>OK. I'm confused here. It has been my experience that if you blow up
>a GIF image too much, the image loses quality due to the face that
>the image is a bunch of pixels being drawn absolutly. Text gets
>"jaggies" quickly under this scenario. That is why Postscript
>uses algorythms to scale text larger instead of just blowing up
>the pixels. I would assume that this would be true for many other
>image types as well. Highly ditherable but not already dithered
>images would benefit from being blown up better than others, but
>images that the designer dithers suffer from scaling problems.
Sure - postscript is a great fix to the 'jaggies' but there are other
methods of getting rid of 'em -- Photoshop is a great example of how to
enlarge and smooth at the same time. Anti-alias it! PS can use several
different schemes to "smooth" images and they all look pretty good. What
about a built in anti-aliaser? Dithering doesn't do much with how the
edges look -- it's a method for reducing colors or using fewer colors to
approximate a graident (or more colors than are present).
>Can you explain "how" legibility increases with significant size
>enlargement?
>
If using a bitmap it won't -- it will only appear to be smoother with
significant size enlargments of a multiple of the bitmap size... Whew, say
that five times fast! ;)
=B-) Jacob Cazzell
-- /------------------------------------+--------------------------------\ |Jacob Cazzell | My name is Ozymandias, king of | |jacobcaz@inetdirect.net | kings: Look on my works, ye | |http://www.inetdirect.net/jacobcaz/ | mighty, and despair! | \------------------------------------+--------------------------------/