On 01/19/10 22:51, Liam R E Quin wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 22:38 +0100, yahvuu wrote:
[...]
II. Range of actually useful values for IJG quality value
For GIMP's target users less than half of all possible settings
are useful:
possibly - I've often used values as low as 35% or
Once a user starts to use jpeg they have to decide what to do with
quality setting. Bigger number = better quality is not too hard to get
your head around. A bit of experimenting quickly reveals what works best
for a particular task.
You quickly realise what ranges don't fit your needs and
Liam R E Quin wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 22:38 +0100, yahvuu wrote:
[...]
II. Range of actually useful values for IJG quality value
For GIMP's target users less than half of all possible settings
are useful:
possibly - I've often used values as low as 35% or sometimes lower.
The
Hi all,
recent discussion on gimp-user brought up some usuability issues
of the JPEG export dialog [1]. Actually, there's nothing new to say
about it... the big JPEG quality thread did cover it all [2].
However, due to the sheer size of that thread, i think a summary of
open issues is useful.
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 22:38 +0100, yahvuu wrote:
[...]
II. Range of actually useful values for IJG quality value
For GIMP's target users less than half of all possible settings
are useful:
possibly - I've often used values as low as 35% or sometimes lower.
The sweet spot depends hugely
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:38:40 +0100
yahvuu yah...@gmail.com wrote:
II. Range of actually useful values for IJG quality value
For GIMP's target users less than half of all possible settings are
useful:
http://yahvuu.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ijgqualityrange.png
or, in ASCII:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:38:40PM +0100, yahvuu wrote:
Hi all,
recent discussion on gimp-user brought up some usuability issues
of the JPEG export dialog [1]. Actually, there's nothing new to say
about it... the big JPEG quality thread did cover it all [2].
However, due to the sheer size
