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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
