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
> 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
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
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
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:38:40 +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:
> http://yahvuu.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ijgqualityrange.png
> or, in ASCII:
>
> 0
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 hug
