Glenn Linderman wrote: > On approximately 9/21/2008 8:04 PM, came the following characters from > the keyboard of Bob Meetin: >> Fred Weinhaus wrote: >>> Just curious but have you tried putting -quality after -resize? >>> >> For what it's worth, I put an example on my website using a different >> sample image at >> >> www.dottedi.biz/codesamples/convert/ >> >> and switched the argument order. And fixed that mistake. Doesn't >> seem to help? >> >> see convert.txt for the commands I am running in convert.sh >> >> Also note that I uploaded some examples that I made up using GIMP. >> I'm shooting examples in the dark. With GIMP 70% quality is just >> about where I would like it to be. I gotta believe that that it's >> something simple I'm missing. It'd be so sweet if I could answer my >> own thread..... > > > For a hint, try running > > identify -verbose one-of-the-pics.jpg > > on some of them. > > Note that what GIMP calls 70% may not be the same as what IM calls > 70%. I don't ever recall hearing that the parameters are the exactly > the same in meaning. > > For another hint, note the "profile-exif" size... the IM files contain > profile-exif size comparable to the original picture; GIMP contains a > much smaller profile-exif size. Once you add the option to remove the > profile (I forget, is it -strip ?) you might see more significant > differences in output sizes with various IM -quality settings. > > Personally, I think the GIMP 70% looks better than the IM -quality 70, > and even at IM -quality 90, the GIMP 70% looks brighter. At that > size, it is hard to distinguish quality, though. > > And don't ask me what is in the profile-exif, but someone on the list > might know. > > ====>>>> PROBLEM SOLVED (pretty sure)
It was the profile. I added "-strip" to several of the commands I was testing with the new image and it makes a world of difference. In my shell script I added it to an option to all of "noresize, 640px and 180px". I added the 640 px to make the result more viewable. It appears that profile was adding around 38K to the base of this image, so even at 1% quality it was still minimally 38k+ in size. Later I will clean up this test page. -- Bob Meetin www.dottedi.biz 303-926-0167 Hook up with me on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo Pulse and Bebo or catch my blog at www.dottedi.biz/blog.php Standards - you gotta love em - there are so many to choose from! _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
