>> I need to read up on the GIMP documentation regarding PNG quality
>> settings. Mine are apparently too high.
you may always use maximum compression doesn't change quality
on RGB images usually png have a quite bigger file size then jpg, but if
indexed file size should be not bigger of a corre
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:42:12 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
> I did, after the first time I converted them. I reconverted back to RGB,
> then back to Indexed with no dithering.
Converting a dithered indexed image to RGB doesn't remove dithering. You
have to convert the original RGB image to
On Wednesday 06 January 2010 21:42:12 Programmer In Training wrote:
> I need to read up
> on the GIMP documentation regarding PNG quality settings. Mine are
> apparently too high.
Hello,
png is lossless, so what you set is the compression factor, which doesn't
affect the quality/size ratio but s
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 14:42 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
> I need to read up on the GIMP documentation regarding PNG quality
> settings. Mine are apparently too high.
PNG is a lossless image format, it doesn't have any quality settings.
The only thing you can adjust is the compression fact
On 1/6/2010 2:34 PM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:25:26 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the suggestions, but after converting to indexed and reducing
>> to 256 colors, some of the original sized images were BIGGER
>
> I forgot to mention, you have to select
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:25:26 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions, but after converting to indexed and reducing
> to 256 colors, some of the original sized images were BIGGER
I forgot to mention, you have to select "No dithering" (since these are
screenshots, ditherin
Programmer In Training wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions, but after converting to indexed and reducing
> to 256 colors, some of the original sized images were BIGGER in file
> size so I just wound up cropping out what I really didn't need for the
> article I'm writing (if anyone is interested in
On 1/6/2010 12:01 PM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:41:13 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
>
>> Why are the thumbnails larger in file size then most of the originals
>> (at full size)?! This is unacceptable. I'd rather not use jpg if it can
>> at all be avoided. I used the sa
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:41:13 -0600, Programmer In Training wrote:
> Why are the thumbnails larger in file size then most of the originals
> (at full size)?! This is unacceptable. I'd rather not use jpg if it can
> at all be avoided. I used the same exact settings for saving as a png
> that I used
I'm currently writing a blog article on security online and I've created
some screen-shots, which I then scaled down (to 400 on the smallest
side, any smaller and it becomes completely useless to me) and used
"save as" to make a thumbnail copy while keeping the original[0-1].
Why are the thumbnail
10 matches
Mail list logo
