RE: Lame assistance with PNG Compression
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Mick Raynes wrote: > Thanks Andrew. With indexing we can reduce them to around 70kb? Any other > suggestions then for compression of those images to around 30kb which we can > use the gd library or imagemagick to convert to thumbnails? You can reduce them quite a bit by converting to indexed color, but for your example image, I had to go all the way down to 32 colors to get something around 70kb for 512x384. I'd recommend using jpeg if possible - gd and imagemagick can both deal directly with jpeg (unless they were compiled without jpeg support). later, Andrew
Re: Lame assistance with PNG Compression
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Mick Raynes wrote: > cameras with different settings. Our aim would be to reduce the original > jpg 1000 by 1000 and 120kb (as an eg) to a png 500 by 500 and about 30kb. > As an example we have posted an original jpg image on the net at > www.tablelandsonline.net.au/_test/lychee.jpg PNG is the wrong choice if you need small files - PNG uses lossless compression, so converting your JPGs to PNG will increase the file sizes quite a bit. For example: Your original 1024x768 JPG was 98635 bytes. Scaled to 512x384 and saved as PNG, it was 272249 bytes. I imagine you'll get similar results for all your images. later, Andrew
Re: Gimp Build
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Gift wrote: > Ximian doesn't, compiling does. I thought we were talking about that. > It's why I didn't compile but got the Ximian package. It required gimp > and a few new files. That was it. I am talking about compiling it. I built all the Woody Gimp 1.2 packages on stock Potato + Ximian Gnome. I did not have to upgrade perl, or anything else. later, Andrew
Re: Gimp Build
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Gift wrote: > Um, interesting. But I haven't installed Ximian and I don't intend to. > If it was just Perl, it's one thing. I have a nasty feeling that once I > upgraded perl, it would be something else. If someone has successfully > done it against potato then I'd love to here. Until then, I have it up > and running. Installing Ximian doesn't involve upgrading perl. If you want to see what it does upgrade, look at their Packages.gz. Its basically Gtk+, the Gnome libs, and some Gnome apps. You should be able to compile Gimp 1.2 on Potato by getting Gtk+ 1.2.8 from someplace - the Ximian libgtk1.2 and libglib1.2 packages should install without requiring anything else from Ximian. Everything else needed for building Gimp 1.2 is available in Potato. later, Andrew
Re: Gimp Build
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jonathan Gift wrote: > If you know a way, please share. If not, Ximian is thataway. Once you've installed the Ximian Gnome packages, you should be able to build Gimp 1.2 (assuming you install the Ximian -dev packages) on potato. later, Andrew
Unoffical Gimp 1.2 packages for Debian Potato
I have built Gimp 1.2 packages for Debian Potato systems that have Ximian Gnome installed (Ximian was formerly known as Helix Code). I've put a link to the Ximian installation directions (really just a line to add to /etc/apt/sources.list) up along with the gimp 1.2 packages at: http://www.cerc.utexas.edu/~andrewk/gimp (My packages depend on Ximian Gnome because all the x86 Debian Potato systems I have access to have Ximian installed, and one dependency ends up being on a Ximian-versioned package when I build gimp. Also, Ximian Gnome happens to include libgtk 1.2.8, which is required for Gimp-1.2 - straight Potato only has 1.2.7). later, Andrew
Re: rpm's?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Jonathan Gift wrote: > Christopher S. Swingley wrote: > > > > # apt-get update > > # apt-get install gimp1.2 gimp1.2-perl > > > > These packages worked great for me, but I've been tracking unstable > > fairly closely for years now, so if you're still using potato, YMMV. > > > > I looked on the main debian site and couldn't find gimp 1.2. You have a > site in mind that has it? I looked in potato and woody. Should I have > looked in sid? Yes: potato = stable woody = testing sid = unstable You can try looking directly in /debian/pool/main/g/gimp1.2 and /debian/pool/main/g/gimp-data-extras - you should find both the binary packages and the source there. later, Andrew Kieschnick
Re: Installation gimp 1.1.15
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Hago Ziegler wrote: > Hi, > > I think I need some help. > > I deleted gimp 1.1.11 and downloaded gimp 1.1.15. When I tried to configure, it > said, that it couldn't find gtk. Although the same version (1.2.6) is needed, I > deleted also gtk, downloaded a new one from the gtk-homepage and tried to > install it. > > After having done nearly the whole configuration it says: "X libraries or > include files not found." Was your gimp 1.1.11 built from source or installed from a package? If it was installed from a package, your problem may be that you are missing the development parts of gtk and X. Under Debian you'd be looking for packages such as xlib6g-dev and libgtk1.2-dev; I'm not sure what the Suse equivalents are, or if it even splits things up that way. later, Andrew
Re: selection+-
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:53:31 -0600 (CST), Andrew Kieschnick ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >If the problem is caused by a BUG is your ***, then its a solution, > >and the selection problem is caused by buggy window managers. I know > >kwm and icewm both suffered from this bug at some point. > > Generally, problems with using selection modifier keys are the result > of window managers which grab control+button. The solution is to fix > your window manager configuration. Back at some point, I was told that my problems with selection addition/subtraction/intersection were due to a bug in icewm, which a couple of other window managers also suffered from. The problem only showed up when you had a selection already and were trying to add/subtract/intersect it - it always thought you wanted a new selection; other than that, ctrl/alt/shift+click stuff worked. > I have no ideas what needs to be done for Windows. Gimp32 is terribly > alpha and very few of us even give a damn about it, let alone care to > fix bugs specific to that version. :) It seemed to work fine when I installed it for my brother. I have no idea what version it was though. later, Andrew
Re: Cheap Machine for Gimp?
On 14 Jan 2000, Rui-Tao Dong wrote: > My question is what is the minimal machine configuration for Gimp to > work reasonably fast? What CPU, how much RAM, what video card (to > drive a 21" Hitachi at 1600x1200)? Does it make a big difference if > my home (where gimpswap resides) is local instead of NFS mounted? gimpswap should ALWAYS reside locally. If you have it over NFS now, your performance should increase quite a bit if you move it to something local. Also, you should make sure that the tile cache size is set to something reasonable - half the amount of ram in the machine is a good guess (unless there are many other memory-intensive apps running at the same time). The default tile cache size is 10mb; something larger will increase performance (assuming there is enough ram). later, Andrew
Re: selection+-
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Thierry Michalowski wrote: > Maybe you should take into account that "reinstall your ***" is _not_ > a solution . > This is even more true if the *** is as large a package as KDE! If the problem is caused by a BUG is your ***, then its a solution, and the selection problem is caused by buggy window managers. I know kwm and icewm both suffered from this bug at some point. later, Andrew
Re: transparent background
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Amy Abascal wrote: > Yes, don't just delete the background and save the image on a transparent > background. The image will not have anything to dither with and will > therefore be "ragged". Instead, > > > 1. Set your background color to a color that matches (or closely matches) > the background on your webpage. Instead of all those steps, just have your text (or whatever) on a transparent background, then do #1, and then do filters->colors->semi-flatten. later, Andrew
Re: Pixels
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Alf C Stockton wrote: > I am having a problem understanding the relationship between digital image > size and the image size printed from the Gimp on my HP DeskJet 694C. > I cannot see how an image of 640x480 can, printed at 600dpi, become the > size of an A4 sheet, without the Gimp making changes. ie Does the Gimp > take each pixel and expand (for want of a better word) it to multiple > pixels? > My understanding is that a 640x480 image at 600dpi should be +-1.0 > inch by 0.8 inch not 11.9 inch by 8.4 inch. What am I missing ? The print plug-in defaults to scaling the image to fill 100% of the page. You can set this to whatever value you like (in percent or in pixels per inch) with the scaling control in the print dialog. later, Andrew Kieschnick
Re: Printing
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Alf C Stockton wrote: > One of the very few things I am not happy with on my Linux > 2.0.35(Slackware) system running GIMP 1.0.2 is the printing of digital > photographs to my HP DeskJet 694C. > I have this printer setup for postscript using the magicfilter-1.2's > dj550c-filter. This is obviously not adequate for photos even though text > prints fine. > Any suggestions, polite ones please, gratefully accepted. Try setting the gimp's print plug-in to one of the HP Deskjet options instead of Postscript (in the printer dialog, choose setup, then in that dialog, choose an appropriate driver - I believe theres an HP Deskjet 600 series option). You shouldn't need to change anything else. I can't say whether this will really produce better output, but its easy to try. later, Andrew
