See example images at www.dottedi.biz/codesamples/broken
The image (vanilla) was taken with an ordinary digital slr. I know it
is large - if you check the other image, same problem. It is 300dpi.
You can see this if checking with windows image properties or with
photoshop. However, when I c
Hi,
might be a bug in the JPEG load plug-in or a bug in libjpeg. identify
from ImageMagick does indeed show a different resolution. Somewill
should have a look at the code and check what identify does differently.
Sven
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp
Hello, I'm new with GIMP and I'm having trouble with Iwarp. I have windows and
need help de-bugging the system I got. I have read the directions and frankly
I'm not a tech savy and I would like and could use some (Specific) help in
trying to get Iwarp to work. Thanks.
-
You're going to have to be more specific as to what your problem is, in
other works what works and what doesn't, what error messages, if any, do
you get and what you try to do when the problem occurs.
Without this it will be pretty hard to help you.
>basically, I read about Iwarp and thought it
The problem is that you were trying to open an image in GIF format,
which uses an indexed mode, meaning all colours used in the image are
defined in an index of 255 colours, and any colours not defined in the
index cannot be used in the image. This means that images can't be
blended, for exampl
On Sunday, May 20, 2007 1:07 pm, simon wrote:
> The problem is that you were trying to open an image in GIF format,
> which uses an indexed mode, meaning all colours used in the image are
> defined in an index of 255 colours, and any colours not defined in
> the index cannot be used in the image.
Bob Meetin schreef:
> See example images at www.dottedi.biz/codesamples/broken
>
> The image (vanilla) was taken with an ordinary digital slr. I know it
> is large - if you check the other image, same problem. It is 300dpi.
> You can see this if checking with windows image properties or with
And the really befuddling baffling part is that with some of the stock
images I looked at Gimp seems to read their resolution fine. So I am
guessing that with these stock images there is some image manipulation
going on, then gimp is correctly reading for them?
But on the pictures from my came
Hi,
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 22:40 -0600, Bob Meetin wrote:
> But on the pictures from my cameras (I just ran another test with a
> different camera) Gimp is bound and determined that the resolution is 72.
Well, for pictures from a digital camera the resolution information is
meaningless anyway. S
