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. -- PIT
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
