Hi,
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 19:15 -0400, guepe wrote:
In fact, my patch... does exactly that : if defaults settings are
already saved, jpeg is saved with the parasites one (erasing the
hardcoded ones). If no settings have been saved, then hardcoded are
used.
There is another player in the
Moin,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 00:03 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
The JPEG plug-in should not use the last-used values when being run
non-interactively from the Save action. It should use the, now
user-configurable, default values. Of course if the jpeg-save-options
parasite is set on the image
Sven Neumann writes:
If someone wants to try to recover some of the JPEG save settings when
loading the JPEG file, feel free.
There are some scenarios in which blindly reusing the quality factor
guesstimated from loading an image is not a good idea, even if the
guesstimate is very accurate.
Thanks for the reply, Kevin.
While using the foreign function interface of TinyScheme might work, for what
you are trying to do it is not the best approach. You should really look at
implementing it as a TinyScheme extension. Take a look at the re and tsx
extensions for TinyScheme to see how
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:32:29 +0300, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Neumann writes:
If someone wants to try to recover some of the JPEG save settings
when loading the JPEG file, feel free.
I did.
Thanks for this very nice patch! It would be even better to do the same
for the
Thanks for the reply!
Interesting attempt, but Script-Fu was never meant to be used for direct
pixel manipulation. May I ask why you aren't using one of the GIMP
bindings, like for example Python, that provides support for this level
of pixel access?
We're working for the Grinnell College
guys, what a thread.
I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy
(my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna)
handle indexed mode:
import + export only.
This would prevent the misunderstanding that there is a continuous
lossless workflow for these type
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:54:29 +0200, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
guys, what a thread.
I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy
(my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna)
handle indexed mode:
import + export only.
Eek! That would
Von: Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:54:29 +0200, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
guys, what a thread.
I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy
(my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna)
handle indexed
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 18:42 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
Side note: as suggested by Sven in #gimp, I just had a look at
ImageMagick to try and find out how they retreive or guess the quality
settings from JPEG files. The code is about 100 lines long and can be
found in
There is another player in the game and that's the last-used values
stored with gimp_[gs]et_data(). And that's what has bitten Guillermo.
He has saved an image as JPEG with low quality settings.
No, I haven't.
Since I know the problem I'm using always save as with quality=95 but it's
still
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ha, cross post .
Cross post? Huh?
Btw, is it intentional that you are mailing from two (or three)
different accounts and never put your real name in the From field? I
find the use of two accounts annoying and the lack of a real
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:59:18AM -0400, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Think of the quality setting as an indication of expectations rather
than a specific outcome. It may not be possible to get the exact same
outcome (and obviously -- at least to us -- there's no way to
retroactively improve
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:36 -0600, Scott wrote:
Just curious, what would be so wrong with saving the original file as
a backup before doing a destructive save? Emacs only bites me when I'm
*really* stupid
There's nothing wrong with that. It's even on the list of things that
the file
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:32:14 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, is it intentional that you are mailing from two (or three)
different accounts
No it's not intentional. I share this email client which has several
accounts configured. Occassionally I hit reply and fail to notice
Scott wrote:
I am so glad that Guillermo stuck by his guns and apparently *finally*
got the developers to realise the illogic of this feature.
Scott: Please keep in mind that I was trying to collaborate, not to fight.
In these cases is very common to see differences of criteria and some
rough
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:54:29 +0200, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
guys, what a thread.
das stimmt!
I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy
(my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna)
handle indexed mode:
import + export only.
I
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:18:44PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:36 -0600, Scott wrote:
Just curious, what would be so wrong with saving the original file as
a backup before doing a destructive save? Emacs only bites me when I'm
*really* stupid
There's
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 14:07 -0600, Scott wrote:
If more users would be so persistent, as you call it, then there would
probably not a single developer left who would feel that developing GIMP
is fun. There would probably be noone who would be willing to spend
his/her free time on it.
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:33:34 +0200, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some scenarios in which blindly reusing the quality factor
guesstimated from loading an image is not a good idea, even if the
guesstimate is very accurate. (Which happens when the loaded image's
quantization
Sven Neumann wrote:
I am forwarding this mail from the FSF to the developer list for your
information and for discussion.
The summary, resulting from a short discussion on the #gimp IRC channel:
We won't change to GPLv3 for 2.4.
After 2.4 has been released, this topic can be discussed.
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 12:19 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
[...]
Due to the way file plug-ins are implemented in GIMP, it is not trivial
to do this. But you can easily work around it by assigning Ctrl-S to
Save As.
I'd advise making ^S to be Quit. Then you'll be prompted, realise
your mistake,
Raphaël wrote:
I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy
(my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna)
handle indexed mode:
import + export only.
Eek! That would significantly break the flow for what must be the
most common image format for
Quoting Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... The happy user is
silent. If we would do a change every time a user asks for a change,
then GIMP would be a lot more inconsistent and probably also more buggy.
For that reason it is important to
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:33:34 +0200, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some scenarios in which blindly reusing the quality factor
guesstimated from loading an image is not a good idea, even if the
guesstimate is very accurate. (Which happens when the loaded image's
quantization
At the risk of lengthening this thread... :)
I agree with Peter - saving in a lossy format is a last-step operation
in a good workflow. I respect the case of simple tweak and saving,
but in the long run, all users should never being able to choose
save and then lose data. I expect the Save
On 7/10/07, Tom Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im going to go nuts - i do not understand the gimp work flow with selections.
When I paste an element on to a layer, i can no access the area of the layer
not covered by the element. In on specific example, I moved the contents of a
layer
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:46:44 +0200, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Raphaël wrote:
I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy
(my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna)
handle indexed mode:
import + export only.
Eek! That would
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:24:40 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I have
a Quality setting of 95 and I load an image that was saved with a
Q=50, I should be very disappointed if the GIMP degraded to that level
when I have specified that I expect less loss when saving.
It would NOT degrade it
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:58:50 +0200, Graeme Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:33:34 +0200, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some scenarios in which blindly reusing the quality factor
guesstimated from loading an image is not a good idea, even if the
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:08:45 +0200, Chris Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect the Save command to retain
*all* data: not just some.
If you expect that when using jpeg you are wrong and need to see the first
use warning that has been suggested.
Assuming you do have some knowlege of
On 7/10/07, Tom Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, sounds like Chris suggestions may do the trick. I will try it our 1st
thing in the morn when I get back to work.
It looks to me like you moved the layer itself rather than its
contents,
i used the move tool with not hot keys.
32 matches
Mail list logo
