On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tom Williams 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
Check out my blog: ht
On 05/27/2010 02:56 PM, Frank Gore wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:38 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
On 05/27/2010 03:03 PM, Branko Vukelic wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:38 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 qua
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 Gore:
>>>
>>>
There's more to it than just the PNG format, and this isn't really
a Gimp
thing:
http://homepage.
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.
>>
On 05/27/2010 12:51 PM, Sebastian Tennant wrote:
> Quoth Frank Gore :
>
>> 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 transparen
Quoth Frank Gore :
> 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 but not alpha channel
Hi all,
I downloaded a few little icons in PNG format which have transparent
backgrounds and they display fine in IE6.
I then created a spacer image (in Gimp) consisting solely of a transparent
background but it is rendered as a solid colour (light grey) in IE6.
Can anyone explain what it is you
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 Ma
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 Manipulation Program version 2.4.5
__
> 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 i
i have created some wallpapers for GNU and want to publish them on my
blog. all are under Free Art License. Primarily, i use GIMP and save
images PNG format and i see my images are of size 2.5 MB. when i
convert them to JPG format they get reduced to only 347 or 600 KB of
size without any loss in q
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
Hey:
I have the problem as before. I used powerpoint generating some
arrows (outlined) and texts and save as png, or jpg and view it on
Microsoft Office Picture manage and zoom in/out, all characters and
arrows displayed smoothly.
But when I use gimp to view the image, the texts and arrows are n
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 0x8C3D7645EB4E485
Hi,
Can anyone tell me what the option "save color from transparency"
exactly does when i save a png-file? I don't know the exact english text
which appears here but i guess everyone knows of which option I'm
talking about.
thanks in advance,
bernhard
--
www.gimpusers.de
signature.asc
Descrip
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. Un
Hello all,
I like to save layer information of
a manually created logo. Unfortunately GIMP tells me that it can not save
the layers as png file.
Is png not capable to save this infromation
or do I some thing wrong? Anyway which format can I use to save the layer
information?
Thanks a lot
Michae
hi,
AFAIK, the PNG file format supports two kinds of transparency: variable
transparency(alpha channel) and binary transparency.
I know how to add an alpha channel to the image and manipulate it, but
what I'm asking about is the binary transparency, there should be a
method to choose a color t
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 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 doe
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
Hi,
"Kalle Ounapuu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So now I have 4 images which all look about the same, ranging
> in size from 19419 to 30705. Quite a hit or miss process. One
> would think indexing and crushing would yield the smallest
> image, but it did not.
There are lots
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
ginal 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
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 files:
o...
but they only save a matter of 100's of bytes.
Kalle
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jim
ClarkSent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:17 PMTo:
gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.eduSubject: [Gimp-user] png
compression
Hmm
H...
I have a couple of pngs that I have scaled to make smaller but still visible thumbnails. Image 1 (install1.png) was 799 X 598, I scaled it to 300 X 225. install10.png was 765 X 538, scaled to 450 X 317.
Here's an ls:
10725 Apr 14 13:54 install10.png
24020 Apr 14 15:01 install10_tn.png
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
ind
Hi all,
what determines if pressing the wipe-out button or pressing CTRL-x
extinguishes to either the background color or to transparency? I thought the
type of file would. But some png-files I opened behaved so that CTRL-x of a
selected area makes the deleted stuff transparent (which I want),
Dear all
Sorry if I am asking on the wrong list, as this may not actually be a
GIMP problem.
I am trying to make a menu for a DVD, and following instructions at
http://mightylegends.zapto.org/dvd/dvdauthor_howto.php
I made a background as .jpg, and two buttons as .png files - to show
"highligh
On 12/08/03 19:36 Marco Wessel spoke thusly
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 i
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:13:47PM -0500, Bob Lockie wrote:
> On 12/08/03 16:57 Marco Wessel spoke thusly
> >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
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
On 12/08/03 16:57 Marco Wessel spoke thusly
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
le
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 11/30/03 19:39 Daniel Carrera spoke thusly
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
surpris
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 very
I have a screen capture that I did with KSnapshot that is 34108 bytes.
I shrunk it down with gimp (and ImageMagick) and it got a lot larger
(78875 byte).
Does anyone know what could be happening to make smaller images larger?
I did some screen captures for a manual I am writing but I want to make
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-08-03 at 1923.01 -0400):
> Someone also suggested on another list that the PNG format precludes
> CMYK color model. I know that Gimp does not produce CMYK images, but
> I didn't know whether PNG was an RGB only format. Can someone
> enlighten me?
It supports samples in R
Someone using the suffix gimp.de is sending out spam. It is in html
form so it is easy to screen out.
Someone also suggested on another list that the PNG format precludes
CMYK color model. I know that Gimp does not produce CMYK images, but
I didn't know whether PNG was an RGB only format. Can
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 c
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 long
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
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailma
44 matches
Mail list logo
