I am replying to the list as well, so that this is archived! Thanks much for the prompt reply. I won't have time right away to try this in detail.
*Jeff Trefftzs wrote: > computer screen or printing on ordinary paper, I would recommend > something like ImageMagick to (a) reduce the size of the image > (resolution) and (b) convert from tiff to jpeg. I guess you mean first make a tiff with lower resolution, then make a jpeg from that. > Note that jpegs, even saved at high quality, look crappy when > you blow them up enough. But when you resize the image first, > from a lossless encoding like tiff, then you lose no information > you will be able to notice at the desired end size. I think I get it. With some programs (including gimp) I convert a 100 MB tiff to a 250KB jpeg that looks crappy without blowing it up at all. I guess I need to reduce the resolution of the tiff first and then convert it. I'll play with that. I think my problem is because I am dropping the jpeg quality below 20% to get the file size down and it just doesn't perform well.` > dependent on the grain size, and is usually on the order of tens > or hundreds of megabytes per snapshot/slide/whatever. In my OK, that jibes with what I saw. Particularly even small prints from a portrait studio have better resolution than my scanner can capture. I can find structure in the iris of an eye. OTOH One series of snapshots that I have look fine when viewed at full scale, but the scanner easily gets all the available detail at less than max res. > > Were I getting hi-res scans of film imagery, however, I'd be > prepared to gobble up huge wads of disk space if I wanted to > keep as much of the original information as possible. > Well, CDRs are cheap and can hold maybe ten to fifty of my bzipped large tiffs. Thanks, John _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
