>> 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 this setting. > 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. -- Frank Gore Project Manager www.projectpontiac.com _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user