Guillermo Espertino wrote: > In Gimp the compression factor is expressed as quality factor. So 100% > is the best and 0% is the worst.
GIMP does use the IJG quality scale. > Well, 70% isn't the same in Gimp and in Photoshop. And it doesn't sound > very logical. Blame Adobe for this. The JPEG FAQ states that differences between different programs have always been there, some even going as far as reversing the quality to a compression. See http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/ Also, 95% is the highest practically usable quality setting, anything higher does not have an influence on the pixels anymore (although it might be useful for researchers who are working on the algorithms). The patch currently attached to bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63610 might help to end the problem about which setting should be the default - if quality is persistent, you set it once. HTH, Michael -- GIMP > http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org | _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer