Re: [Gimp-user] image size

2003-01-09 Thread sam ende
On Thursday 09 January 2003 04:02, Jon Winters wrote:


 How large are your large images?  I can toss 2MB (JPEG) 2560x1920 images
 around all day and my computer doesn't miss a tick.

4000x5 0r 6, its the layers that make it big, sometimes i have 10 or more 
layers. xcf not jpeg, same image as jpeg is nothing sizewise.

 I consider large images to be 100MB or more and I haven't opened one in
 a long time but I expect it would probably slow my system down.

 yes.

 My system is a dual 800Mhz PIII with 256MB of SDRAM and a Matrox G400
 video adapter.  (I think the video card has 64MB of memory)

i think you're showing off now :)


 Check the settings on your tile cache.  Mine is set to 128MB and I think
 the default was a woefull 32MB.

cache is set to 256, i wanted to do more but it wouldn't let me, well it 
would but it sorta didn't work anymore then :)
it doesn't like it if you resize  a layer x2 but do x 12 by accident instead 
:)

sammi

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] image size

2003-01-09 Thread sam ende
On Thursday 09 January 2003 03:36, Fred Bazolo wrote:
 from sam ende, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:42:19 +:

 When my file gets to be about 100 megs in size, it is hard to get any work
 done. 

yes, so i end up copying visable and paste as new to work on that, that also 
helps with the undo, cos its impractical to set that much higher than 10x 
when you're doing large images as well.
but it means i end up having several version of the same image in diffenrt 
stages stored, which uses tons of disk space, of which i have enough but 
still.

Files up to 25 megs or even 30 megs do fine, without a lot of waiting
 around for things to stabilize. Depends on your system I suppose.

smaller images are no problem. in fact when i started using gimp i had a much 
smaller machine, only 64 memory, barely up to gimps minimal requirements and 
it did fine

 What I have is an Athlon 1200 Mhz Tbird, 768 megs of ram, about 15 gigs of
 HD space to play with. Not real slow but hardly extraordinary.

 I've never used a complete version of Photoshop. 

me neither, nor a trial version.

I stopped using
 proprietary software two or three years ago. Used to use Corel Draw, and
 can remember years ago when a five meg graphic would take an hour to
 display, and I was ecstatic! Ha! Things keep getting better.

:), still takes awhile to render some fractals though.


 I have read that with the larger files Photoshop does seem to have an
 advantage. That, along with the CYMK thing, are what seem to keep it alive.

iit does have some neat functions, i like the idea of a history brush. maybe 
one could get rid of some functions in the gimp that are the same or nearly 
the same or aren't much use to make room for other differnt ones. for 
instance in the light effects we have flare fx and gflare, and i think gflare 
has the same flare in it as flare fx, that's only a little thing i know, but 
there are other examples of duplication ( i just can't think of any off the 
top of my head)

sammi
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP Image Size Limits

2003-01-09 Thread sam ende
On Thursday 09 January 2003 04:31, Kevin Myers wrote:

 2. Would anyone out there care to suggest a readily available commercial
 Linux distribution that is extremely easy to install, learn, and use for
 unsophisticated users with primarily Windblows experience?

mandrake, is a bit bloated but easy, self installs pretty much like windows, 
so it only take about an hour or so to get up and running. you do need to 
know exactly what type of monitor you have for setting up though and 
hopefully you don't have a hsp modem :)


sammi
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change

2003-01-09 Thread Fred Bazolo

hey Kevin,

Just do Image - Scale Image and adjust the dpi accordingly. That seems to 
work.

Fred

On Wednesday 08 January 2003 23:52, Kevin Myers wrote:

 Hello,

 Does anyone out there happen to know of a utility that can simply change
 the image resolution values that are imbedded in a TIFF file?  For example,
 I would like to be able to change 200 dpi to 400 dpi and thereby reduce the
 output size of the image by half, while maintaining the same pixel count. 
 I don't want to waste a bunch of time reading and writing the actual pixel
 data, rather just directly replace the resolution values instead.

 Why would I want to do that?  Well for one thing, it would just be handy
 sometimes to maintain relative image quality while changing the image size.
 But primarily I need this at the moment because it might allow me to work
 around a bug in gimp 1.2.4 that seems to be triggered by exceeding a
 certain physical dimension size limit for an image (NOT a maximum file size
 or pixel count)

 I think that perhaps this can be accomplished with ImageMagick, but I don't
 seem to be able to figure out the proper command line parameters.

 Thanks in advance for any ideas.

 s/KAM


 ___
 Gimp-user mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP Image Size Limits

2003-01-09 Thread Geoffrey
sam ende wrote:

On Thursday 09 January 2003 04:31, Kevin Myers wrote:



2. Would anyone out there care to suggest a readily available commercial
Linux distribution that is extremely easy to install, learn, and use for
unsophisticated users with primarily Windblows experience?



mandrake, is a bit bloated but easy, self installs pretty much like windows, 
so it only take about an hour or so to get up and running. you do need to 
know exactly what type of monitor you have for setting up though and 
hopefully you don't have a hsp modem :)

This is getting a bit off topic, but as long as we're talking distros...

SuSE, Mandrake and Red Hat permit a pretty much unattended install. 
Each will permit you to select a standard install and move forward.  You 
will still have to answer questions regarding your hardware, such as 
monitor, mouse and possibly video card, but my latest efforts with both 
Red Hat and Mandrake, have found that both identified these devices 
properly and all I had to do was confirm.

 I've got Mandrake 9.0 installed on 4 machines, and all I needed to 
know about the monitor was the make and model, which is no more then 
required for a windows install.  Each monitor was automatically detected 
properly, so all I had to do was verify that was correct and in all 
cases it was. These monitors range from a 20 Viewsonic to couple of 
relatively old 14 (Dell, Panasonic, Packard Bell).

As far as bloated, Mandrake will permit you to choose what you install 
from various levels:

workstation vs. server
specific type of workstation (development env., internet client..)
install by individual packages.

Our local LUG had a demonstration of SuSE 8.0 install and it went 
flawless, on a machine for someone who had never used Linux.  He was 
watching DVD movies by the end of the presentation.

I would say you are safe going with Red Hat, Mandrake or SuSE.  Of late 
I've been running Mandrake, although I have two machines on Red Hat and 
one on SuSE.  I also just purchased SuSE 8.1 and plan to check it out.

Finally, both my 11 year daughter and my mother-in-law are using Linux 
for their primary computing solution.  My daughter installed her own Red 
Hat, but I was tier I support during this process. :)


--
Until later: Geoffrey		[EMAIL PROTECTED]

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user


Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change

2003-01-09 Thread Kevin Myers
But Fred, that requires me to load the image into the GIMP first, which I
can't do because something about the image's physical dimension is too
large.  I need to adjust the resolution BEFORE loading into the GIMP...

s/KAM


- Original Message -
From: Fred Bazolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: gimp users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change



hey Kevin,

Just do Image - Scale Image and adjust the dpi accordingly. That seems
to
work.

Fred

On Wednesday 08 January 2003 23:52, Kevin Myers wrote:

 Hello,

 Does anyone out there happen to know of a utility that can simply change
 the image resolution values that are imbedded in a TIFF file?  For
example,
 I would like to be able to change 200 dpi to 400 dpi and thereby reduce
the
 output size of the image by half, while maintaining the same pixel count.
 I don't want to waste a bunch of time reading and writing the actual pixel
 data, rather just directly replace the resolution values instead.

 Why would I want to do that?  Well for one thing, it would just be handy
 sometimes to maintain relative image quality while changing the image
size.
 But primarily I need this at the moment because it might allow me to work
 around a bug in gimp 1.2.4 that seems to be triggered by exceeding a
 certain physical dimension size limit for an image (NOT a maximum file
size
 or pixel count)

 I think that perhaps this can be accomplished with ImageMagick, but I
don't
 seem to be able to figure out the proper command line parameters.

 Thanks in advance for any ideas.

 s/KAM


 ___
 Gimp-user mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change

2003-01-09 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:52:18AM -0600, Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think that perhaps this can be accomplished with ImageMagick, but I don't
 seem to be able to figure out the proper command line parameters.

Well, you can't do it with ImageMagick ;) It does read the image in,
and, since this is difficult in the general case, I doubt such a program
exists.

-- 
  -==- |
  ==-- _   |
  ---==---(_)__  __   __   Marc Lehmann  +--
  --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |e|
  -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\   XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation   |
 |
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change

2003-01-09 Thread Fred Bazolo

Oops! Sorry Kevin! My brain took a wrong turn. ha!

Fred


On Thursday 09 January 2003 06:20, you wrote:
 But Fred, that requires me to load the image into the GIMP first, which I
 can't do because something about the image's physical dimension is too
 large.  I need to adjust the resolution BEFORE loading into the GIMP...

 s/KAM


 - Original Message -
 From: Fred Bazolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: gimp users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change



 hey Kevin,

 Just do Image - Scale Image and adjust the dpi accordingly. That seems
 to
 work.

 Fred

 On Wednesday 08 January 2003 23:52, Kevin Myers wrote:
  Hello,
 
  Does anyone out there happen to know of a utility that can simply change
  the image resolution values that are imbedded in a TIFF file?  For

 example,

  I would like to be able to change 200 dpi to 400 dpi and thereby reduce

 the

  output size of the image by half, while maintaining the same pixel count.
  I don't want to waste a bunch of time reading and writing the actual
  pixel data, rather just directly replace the resolution values instead.
 
  Why would I want to do that?  Well for one thing, it would just be handy
  sometimes to maintain relative image quality while changing the image

 size.

  But primarily I need this at the moment because it might allow me to work
  around a bug in gimp 1.2.4 that seems to be triggered by exceeding a
  certain physical dimension size limit for an image (NOT a maximum file

 size

  or pixel count)
 
  I think that perhaps this can be accomplished with ImageMagick, but I

 don't

  seem to be able to figure out the proper command line parameters.
 
  Thanks in advance for any ideas.
 
  s/KAM
 
 
  ___
  Gimp-user mailing list
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

 ___
 Gimp-user mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



[Gimp-user] Corrupt XCF File

2003-01-09 Thread George McConnell
I was happily working away with Gimp 1.2.3 with an image that had
several layers.

The image was in Gimp .XCF format.

I saved and closed the image. 

I came back to the image later and tried to reopen it only to get the
message:

XCF: This file is corrupt!  I have loaded as much
of it as I can, but it is incomplete.

The only thing I get are two VERY small layers.

I checked in ~/.gimp/tmp but there are no files there to restore from.

Is there any way to retrieve this? Edit the image binary to correct a
problem? ANYTHING?

I'm somewhat desperate because this image was several hours work I don't
wish to recreate.

Thanks.
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



[Gimp-user] Corrupt XCF File

2003-01-09 Thread daniel cline
PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE US FROM YOUR E-MAIL.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

THANKS YOU

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change

2003-01-09 Thread Kevin Myers
Thanks to Jon for the suggestion.

Jon's approach (using mogrify's -density option) does indeed result in the
desired change to the file.  I was surprised to find that this worked, since
the docs indicate that -density only applies to decoding of PS and PDF
files...?

Unfortunately using mogrify in this manner is quite slow for the very large
images that I am working with.  Obviously ImageMagick is loading the entire
file then writing it right back out again.  That's completely unnecessary
when all I want to accomplish is to make a simple change to two metadata
fields in the header for the image in the tiff file.

At the moment I'm considering modifying tiffset (a simple utility supplied
with libtiff) to give me something that can (hopefully) change the
resolution metadata hundreds of times more quickly.  That's important,
because I have a large number of very large images to be modified.

s/KAM


- Original Message -
From: Jon Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: gimp users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change



 I think I found it over on the ImageMagick user list...

 Try this:

 mogrify -density 96 foo.tiff

 Instead of 96 use whatever you want the resolution to be.

 Good luck!


 --
 Jon Winters  O   O   O   O   O   O   O
 History Will Prove us right   O B S C U R A
 http://www.obscurasite.com/jon/ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \


___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] TIFF File Resolution Change

2003-01-09 Thread Jon Winters

I think I found it over on the ImageMagick user list...

Try this:

mogrify -density 96 foo.tiff

Instead of 96 use whatever you want the resolution to be.

Good luck!


-- 
Jon Winters  O   O   O   O   O   O   O
History Will Prove us right   O B S C U R A
http://www.obscurasite.com/jon/ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



Re: [Gimp-user] Copy/cut/paste to new folder

2003-01-09 Thread PL O'Smith
* On Thursday 09 January 2003 12:22 pm, zeus wrote:
 I notice that every time, i create new folder in nautilus. I can not
 directly mov/cut/paste/copy in to new folder (the one i created). In
 order to do that, i must refresh Nutilus to do that.

 Is this some kind lack of Nautilus??

--==
zeus,
Sounds like a bug in Nautilus to me.  I know the file managers in KDE 
don't behave that way.  I try not to use Gnome too much, so am not 
completely familar with Nautilus, except for the many complaints I hear 
on the SuSE list about it and it's behavior.  :o)

Patrick
 
  --- KMail v1.4.3 --- SuSE Linux Pro v8.1 ---
Registered Linux User #225206
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user



[Gimp-user] Copy/cut/paste to new folder

2003-01-09 Thread zeus
I notice that every time, i create new folder in nautilus. I can not directly 
mov/cut/paste/copy in to new folder (the one i created). In order to do that, 
i must refresh Nutilus to do that.

Is this some kind lack of Nautilus??
-- 
Zeus ;]

http://zeus.coolfreepage.com|| personal webs
http://www.bajingloncat.com || Bajing loncat webs

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user