H.S.([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > Hi Wayne, > > I tried your way and converted all the image with quality 25. You are > right, I couldn't notice any perceptual difference at normal size. The > different is noticable only if you magnify the image. > > I had a total of 14 images of size 2272x1704 (taken by a 4 megapixel > digital camera). I reduced them in size (682x511 pixels; or to 30%) and > their quality (to 25). The reduced size images were taking a total of > 2.7 MB at default quality. But by using quality 25, the disk space usage > reduced to 0.608 MB! This is a great improvement. (I am still getting > progressive jpegs as the output.)
Glad to hear it helped. I have added the '-interlace plane' to my script, thanks to you, and am getting my images down a bit more as well. > > Here is the command I used to do the conversion (it is a one long line): > $> for f in *.jpg; do echo "$f"; bn=`basename "$f" .jpg`; convert > -resize 30% -quality 25 -interlace plane "$f" ${bn}-small.jpg; done Very nice. I used to do the convert to selected images in my Digikam album's but had to go to a script since the last Digikam upgrade. It seems the batch processing was left out in this version. I'm glad you posted your query. I have learned something new again this week! DU never fails! Best Regards Wayne -- At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. _______________________________________________________ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]