On 04/03/10 21:22, Jason Simanek wrote:
> ... elision by patrick...
> Thanks to browser type #2 I can only use color profiles on images that
> are not intended to be a part of the web site's design. If I do include
> color profiles on those images, every time I bring up the site in Safari
> it will
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 20:22 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:20 AM, Luiz Felipe Moraes Pereira wrote:
> > Hi again, the original discussion is in the link below:
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611758
> >
> > I was advised to present this idea here, what do you think
Hi,
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:34 +, Omari Stephens wrote:
> Finally, to respond to your question on the bug, we need some way to
> embed an actual sRGB profile into an image.
Can't we just embed the lcms built-in sRGB profile? That sounds like a
totally straight-forward solution. But I might
On Saturday 06 March 2010 14:56:21 Sven Neumann wrote:
> > To me, having the layers dialog scroll to a seemingly random place after
> > deleting a layer is a clear usability problem. A user should not have to
> > worry about what layer that was previously selected when deleting a
> > layer.
>
> Pe
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:56 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 20:22 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> > On 03/05/2010 03:20 AM, Luiz Felipe Moraes Pereira wrote:
> > > Hi again, the original discussion is in the link below:
> > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611758
> >
On 02/27/2010 03:14 PM, Jon Nordby wrote:
> Sets lower compression and disables interlacing.
> On a 5 layer image of 4500x6000px this gives an order of magnitude better
> save-times, with 50% increase in file size.
Hi Jon
Sorry for the late follow-up and thanks for maintaining the ORA plug-in.
5
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 15:30 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 03:14 PM, Jon Nordby wrote:
> > Sets lower compression and disables interlacing.
> > On a 5 layer image of 4500x6000px this gives an order of magnitude better
> > save-times, with 50% increase in file size.
>
> Hi Jon
>
>
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 16:35 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
[...]
> IMO 50% increase in file size is not much for a file format that is
> meant for archival and exchange of images.
Archival - it'd mean an extra 20 gigabytes to back up for one of
my "old books" archives for example.
Interchange - the di
