Quoth Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com:
There's more to it than just the PNG format, and this isn't really a Gimp
thing:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/
Many thanks to all respondents.
It turns out there are two kinds of transparency; binary alpha channel. IE6
can handle binary
On 05/27/2010 12:51 PM, Sebastian Tennant wrote:
Quoth Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com:
There's more to it than just the PNG format, and this isn't really a Gimp
thing:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/
Many thanks to all respondents.
It turns out there are two kinds
On 05/27/2010 01:47 PM, Stefan Maerz wrote:
On 5/27/2010 3:38 PM, Tom Williams wrote:
Can't doing this result in some loss of image quality? Sometimes I'll
make PNGs with a drop shadow and transparency and when I convert the
image to indexed mode, the drop shadow quality suffers.
Peace...
On 05/27/2010 02:00 PM, niski wrote:
W dniu 2010-05-27 22:38, Tom Williams pisze:
On 05/27/2010 12:51 PM, Sebastian Tennant wrote:
Quoth Frank Goreg...@friendlyphotozone.com:
There's more to it than just the PNG format, and this isn't really
a Gimp
thing:
On 05/27/2010 03:03 PM, Branko Vukelic wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Tom Williams tomd...@comcast.net wrote:
Can't doing this result in some loss of image quality? Sometimes I'll
make PNGs with a drop shadow and transparency and when I convert the
image to indexed mode, the
On 05/27/2010 02:56 PM, Frank Gore wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Tom Williams tomd...@comcast.net wrote:
Can't doing this result in some loss of image quality? Sometimes I'll
make PNGs with a drop shadow and transparency and when I convert the
image to indexed mode, the drop
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tom Williams tomd...@comcast.net wrote:
Thanks for the info! :)
Tom, there's no need to spam the list with thanks (as far as I'm
concerned), and quote whole messages just to say Thanks. ;)
--
Branko Vukelić
bg.bra...@gmail.com
stu...@brankovukelic.com
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 12:14 +0200, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
GIMP saves the file gamma 0.4545 even if I uncheck its saving
in PNG save dialog.
Both checked and unchecked will save the gamma 0.4545.
xloadimage shows both saves equally dark, with wrong intensities.
Version: GNU Image
Von: arnuld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why JPG is so lightweight as compared to PNG ? (even when image doe
snot have any transparency)
Because JPEG has been designed to be this way. It does achieve higher
compression at the cost of quality loss.
The features of both file formats are explained in
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76096
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
On Monday 25 September 2006 02:32 pm, devvv wrote:
[Gimp-user] PNG option: save color from transparency
Date: Today 02:32:49 pm
From: devvv [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Message was signed with unknown key 0x8C3D7645EB4E4851.
The validity of the signature cannot
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:33:23 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: [Gimp-user] png and layers
Hello all,
I like to save layer information of a manually created logo. Unfortunately
GIMP tells me that
There's lots of things you can do to make PNG's
smaller.
If you save them as Indexed PNG's and reduce the
colours, you may end up with smaller filesizes. Change the image mode to Indexed
and it should prompt you for number of colours and other
options.
After exporting the PNG, it still
Things get odder and odder.
I need to put 10 screen shots on a web page and was hoping to shave 100K from the final page.
So I took one of my images and indexed it.
Before index: 27004
After index:30705.
It got larger? I downloaded and installed a png crusher and ran it against both
Message-From: Jim Clark
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:05
PMTo: Kalle OunapuuCc:
gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.eduSubject: RE: [Gimp-user] png
compression
Things get odder and odder.I need to put 10 screen shots on a web
page and was hoping to shave 100K
Jim Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Things get odder and odder.
I need to put 10 screen shots on a web page and was hoping to shave 100K
from the final page.
So I took one of my images and indexed it.
Before index: 27004
After index:30705.
It got larger?
This can happen when
I no-dithered and I crushed and I reduced my 10 images from 165084 to 113479 without using any thumbnails. 50K isn't 100K, but it is a significant reduction, and with no visible loss of image quality.
Worked well--thanks for the pointers.
Jim Clark
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:16:30PM -0500, Jim Clark wrote:
Is there something I should be doing to get a smaller file size?
a not so obvious file size issue is whether or not your image has an
alpha channel. if your png needs transparent areas then this is a
needed channel. if your png does
On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:51, Jim Clark wrote:
I no-dithered and I crushed and I reduced my 10 images from 165084
to 113479 without using any thumbnails. 50K isn't 100K, but it is a
significant reduction, and with no visible loss of image quality.
Worked well--thanks for the pointers.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:08:35 +0100, Johannes Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while with
others all I can reach is substituting the selected area by the background
color. How can I force those files to delete to transparency?
You must make sure the image is in RGB mode (the titlebar should
On 11/30/03 19:39 Daniel Carrera spoke thuslybr
My first guess would be that KSnapshot made an indexed image and GIMP
and ImageMagick are saving it as RGB. That shouldn't happen though.
Check the compression level.
It could just be that KSnapshot is better at making PNGs. But I would be
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:43:43PM -0500, Bob Lockie wrote:
KSnapshot: 34 108 bytes, 585x385, 24bbp, RGB, deflate.
Gimp: 78 896 bytes, 400x263, 24bbp, RGB, deflate, compression 9.
There are no options in KSnapshot so I don't know what the compression
level is (can it be higher than the
On 12/08/03 16:57 Marco Wessel spoke thuslybr
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:43:43PM -0500, Bob Lockie wrote:
KSnapshot: 34 108 bytes, 585x385, 24bbp, RGB, deflate.
Gimp: 78 896 bytes, 400x263, 24bbp, RGB, deflate, compression 9.
There are no options in KSnapshot so I don't know what the compression
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:13:47PM -0500, Bob Lockie wrote:
The pics are on the web at:
http://www.lockie.ca/test/ksnapshot.png
http://www.lockie.ca/test/gimp.png
Ugh, KDE is ugly.. *ducks*
Anyway, this is exactly what I said. When you rescaled the image you
made it harder to compress
My first guess would be that KSnapshot made an indexed image and GIMP
and ImageMagick are saving it as RGB. That shouldn't happen though.
Check the compression level.
It could just be that KSnapshot is better at making PNGs. But I would be
surprised because GIMP and ImageMagick are both
Daniel Carrera wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:31:05PM +0100, David selby wrote:
When saving PNGs gimp defaults to compression level 6. Is there any
reason why I should not use compression level 9 ... Is there a reason
why this is not the default ?
Dave
I understand that the higher the
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:31:05PM +0100, David selby wrote:
When saving PNGs gimp defaults to compression level 6. Is there any
reason why I should not use compression level 9 ... Is there a reason
why this is not the default ?
Dave
I understand that the higher the compression the longer
27 matches
Mail list logo
