On 01/19/10 22:51, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 22:38 +0100, yahvuu wrote:
>> II. Range of actually useful values for IJG quality value
>> For GIMP's target users less than half of all possible settings
>> are useful:
> possibly - I've often used values as low as 35% or sometimes lower.
> "The sweet spot" depends hugely on your image and your purpose -
> consider providing a "lowsrc" alternate image for low bandwidth
> Web users for example, or a thumnail.
> Most of the preview images on www.fromoldbooks.org are saved at 75%
> (usually with "smoothing" to reduce artifacts a little)
>> . no-go: just wastes disk space -- ever heard of XCF?
> Actually I use 97% a lot, and 100% too -- because I want jpeg format,
> not some application-specific thing that won't work for most users.
> Export is about interchange, the end product, you shouldn't ever use
> jpg for a file you're going to edit again, and you shouldn't normally
> use xcf for interchange unless you know they're using (a compatible
> version of) GIMP...
Once a user starts to use jpeg they have to decide what to do with
"quality" setting. Bigger number = better quality is not too hard to get
your head around. A bit of experimenting quickly reveals what works best
for a particular task.
You quickly realise what ranges don't fit your needs and focus on those
that do. End of story.
I see no use what so ever in creating some new, grouped setting in its
place. This would essentially involve exactly the same learning process
and reduce control and compromise results.
>> III. Parameter Triaging
>> The "Subsampling" parameter is more important than its current
>> position inside the "advanced parameters" section suggests.
> Yes - in particular it affects colours, especially reds.
I agree , this setting could come out be more visible. It's annoying
having to dig in there just to check what it is set at.
Gimp-developer mailing list