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 3
> 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 nee
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 low
On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>> "yes that looks shit on platform xyz but we cannot do anything about
>> it through the builder/declarative way."
>
> I can't imagine why something looking shit would be due to the use of
> glade/gtk builder. Maybe I'm a bit unimaginative ;-
