Russ Butler wrote: > I don't know why one would want to do that with a JPEG image. > JPEG file size is strongly dependant on the detail of the image.
OK, I see that I first have to justify my request: It is not seldom that you have to meet disk space limitations on certain image servers. In my case, I share an image pool on an Internet server with several colleagues and we agreed on a file size limitation of 400 kB. But I think that file size limitations for images, especially JPEG photographs, are quite common elsewhere: Millions of photographs taken by German loss adjusters (those guys who take photographs of damaged cars) have to meet a file size limitation of 400 kB when sending photographs to certain insurance companies. What they in fact mostly do, is decreasing the photograph's dimensions, which is surely the dumbest thing to do if you want to preserve the information in the image. If this counts as a reason for my question, could we proceed to the answer? Greetings from Germany Wolfgang Hugemann _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
