>> 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.
I disagree, I think Photoshop's way of displaying the JPG compression
slider is ridiculous. You can move the slider back and forth within a
very wide range before the corresponding number changes. And since the
slider doesn't spring back to a pre-determined spot on the line, that
means one could select a different grade of "level 8" depending on
where the slider is positioned. You can actually see this by looking
at the file size. If I select the lower range of "level 8", the file
is smaller than if I pick the higher range of "level 8". This has
always bugged me since the dawn of Photoshop (I started using it at
version 4.0 back in 1997). I far prefer the Gimp method of displaying
> Is this any help, I came across it a long time ago?
> Here is a table that provides an approximate mapping between Photoshop
> quality levels and GIMP (actually IJG JPEG library) quality levels:
Now that's awesome. I always wondered what the correlation was. And I
always worried that Adobe was ignoring the subsampling aspect, now I
know better. It's also interesting to see that they don't allow
anything lower than 8...@2x2.
Gimp-user mailing list