On 1/6/2010 12:01 PM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:41:13 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
>> Why are the thumbnails larger in file size then most of the originals
>> (at full size)?! This is unacceptable. I'd rather not use jpg if it can
>> at all be avoided. I used the same exact settings for saving as a png
>> that I used for the originals.
> Your originals have few colours and sharp borders, and are fairly small.
> The thumbnails aren't that much smaller, but due to resizing, you
> introduced a lot of new colours, which make the images harder to compress,
> despite somewhat smaller size. You can save some space by converting the
> images (both original and resized) to 256 colours, but the originals will
> likely still compress better.

Thanks for the suggestions, but after converting to indexed and reducing
to 256 colors, some of the original sized images were BIGGER in file
size so I just wound up cropping out what I really didn't need for the
article I'm writing (if anyone is interested in reading it, I'll provide
a link if you mail me off list) and doing away with the idea of
thumbnails completely (for some reason, all the reduced sized images,
despite what I set the compression type to, look thoroughly crappy,
which is a change from 2.6.6 (I'm using GIMP 2.6.8)). Hopefully none of
the images will flow outside the boundry of the blog layout. I've also
been having another issue with GIMP, but I think that one is because of
Windows and not GIMP.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to