Philip Rhoades wrote:
> On 2010-01-18 20:40, yahvuu wrote:
>> Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>> It still seems counter intuitive that opening a JPG (even if it is a
>>> photo rather than a computer generated image) and immediately saving it
>>> with 100% "quality" increases the size by 2.5 . .
>> so you mean the scale should be different? Like
>> 1 .. 10 ... 100 ... 100000
>> ^ ^
>> | \ extravagant luxury quality for the filthy rich
>> current "90"
> ?? - that's an odd comment . .
oh yeah, i should have been more clear.
Now that you and me and probably a few others have learned something new
about JPG peculiarities, i was brainstorming how the user interface could
be tweaked to avoid misleading associations.
Above diagram was intended to depict a logarithmic scale for the quality value,
where the numbers relate to the typical growth in file size .
But a much better and simpler idea is to just use a
number range from 1..13, similar to photoshop.
I'll take that over to the developer's list.
Gimp-user mailing list