Philip Rhoades wrote: > Peter, > > > On 2010-01-18 20:40, yahvuu wrote: >> Philip Rhoades wrote: >>> It still seems counter intuitive that opening a JPG (even if it is a >>> photo rather than a computer generated image) and immediately saving it >>> with 100% "quality" increases the size by 2.5 . . >> >> so you mean the scale should be different? Like >> >> 1 .. 10 ... 100 ... 100000 >> ^ ^ >> | \ extravagant luxury quality for the filthy rich >> current "90" >> default > > > ?? - that's an odd comment . .
oh yeah, i should have been more clear. Now that you and me and probably a few others have learned something new about JPG peculiarities, i was brainstorming how the user interface could be tweaked to avoid misleading associations. Above diagram was intended to depict a logarithmic scale for the quality value, where the numbers relate to the typical growth in file size [1]. But a much better and simpler idea is to just use a number range from 1..13, similar to photoshop. I'll take that over to the developer's list. regards, peter [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quality_comparison_jpg_vs_saveforweb.jpg _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
