> Neither is chosing the appropriate format specific "the web" so "save 
> for the web" concept is misleading. It should be "select best 
> compression format" or so.
I have no argument with this. If we can do away with a separate dialogue 
altogether, so much the better.
> It would be interesting to have a direct means of comparing various 
> levels of jpeg compression side by side but this is not something you 
> need to do in detail every time you save an image. There are so many 
> variants once you have several formats and all thier parameters, that I 
> think it would be hard to design an all encompassing interface. It would 
> probably have to be done in several stages. A screen full of thumbnails 
> with mouse-over zoom could eliminate the blantantly unsuitable formats 
> and ratios. Then a second level do a closer comarison and probably a 
> third level to fine tune compression options.
I don't think it really needs to be that complicated. All we're talking about 
the options already available in the export dialogue and 2 or more preview 
panes. The controls could change to reflect the active pane.

> BTW David I find jpeg "quality" param break-point is 82 -84 , beyond 
> that as you say it gets bigger with no gain.
> You can drop to 65 if you're really byte conscious and quality is not 
> important.
Somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent is about normal for me, but on my latest 
project I've been getting good quality at as low as 60. You're probably right 
that I could just use my eyes but I always succumb to the temptation to do a 
direct comparison. :p

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to