Re: [Gimp-user] Watermarking photographs---
Richard Oliver wrote: > I have downloaded the ImageMagick program,but for the life of me I > cannot get it installed / launched so perhaps you could render some > more help ?? Make sure you downloaded one of the executable installer packages and not the source code of ImageMagick. I noticed that it might be a bit confusing as to which package to get since there are five different versions available on the download page located at http://www.imagemagick.org/script/binary-releases.php#windows. The fifth version offered is only useful if you have a 64-bit computer. If you don't have that, you need to use one of the first four links. If you are still having problems, it might help to know which installer package you are trying to use, which version of Windows you are using, and some more details of what happens when you try to run the installer including the contents of any error messages you may be seeing. That is about all I can suggest for now. I don't use ImageMagick under Windows so I haven't tried installing any of the Windows installer packages. -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: | Try to assimilate the world!" #include | -Pinkutus & the Borg ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] jpeg compression levels
Jeffery Small wrote: > "=?UTF-8?B?UmFwaGHDq2w=?= Quinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> This is probably way more information that you were expecting. The >> short answer is: set your GIMP quality level to 93 or higher (but in >> fact, 90 should be OK). And set the subsampling to 1x1,1x1,1x1. >> > > Raphael: > > Where do you set this? Is there some global variable or Xdefault? I do not > see anything on the Preference dialog. Thanks > > Regards, > -- > Jeff > Pardon me for butting in. You set this in the 'save as jpeg' dialogue when you select to save in jpeg format. Thanks very much Raphael. Andrew ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] jpeg compression levels
"=?UTF-8?B?UmFwaGHDq2w=?= Quinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >This is probably way more information that you were expecting. The >short answer is: set your GIMP quality level to 93 or higher (but in >fact, 90 should be OK). And set the subsampling to 1x1,1x1,1x1. Raphael: Where do you set this? Is there some global variable or Xdefault? I do not see anything on the Preference dialog. Thanks Regards, -- Jeff ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] A GIMP book
--- Dotan Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very nice, the sample chapters were amazing. This seems to be written > for Gimp 2.2, but 2.4 will have significant changes. Can you (or the > author) address that issue? Speaking of books, I have Beginning Gimp, which was published in '06 but says it includes material on the "latest 2.4 release" Wha? Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Some questions about script-fu and tinyscheme.
> For now, I've worked around as this, but looks ugly: > > (for-each (lambda (z)(write-char z txt-output-file ))(string->list > text-string)) better as this: (display text-string txt-output-file) BTW The gimp script-fu console segfaults typing something like (let* (a 1)) Should I post a bug report? gimp 2.4.0-rc1 Yours Pere ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp 2.3.18 and script-fu errors
El dj 23 de 08 del 2007 a les 09:49 +0100, en/na David Woodfall va escriure: > On (22:49 22/08/07), Pere Pujal i Carabantes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> put forth > the proposition: > > El dc 22 de 08 del 2007 a les 12:43 +0100, en/na David Woodfall va > > escriure: > > > Error: Set!: Unbound variable: new > > > > > (set! new (car(gimp-layer-copy layer 1))) ; Add an alpha channel > > by > > (define new (car(gimp-layer-copy layer 1))) ; Add an alpha channel > > > > > > Works thanks. Is set!/define the only difference with the new script > engine? I edited a few more and all seems well. > I am not sure, I am just learning. The main difference is the interpreter Tinyscheme vs SIOD, each one has its own interpretation of the standard. About set!, it serves to put a value to a variable, not to declare it. Say open a gimp script-fu console and type the following: (set! x 1) ---> Error: set!: unbound variable: x (define x) ---> x (set! x 1) ---> 1 As you see, set! works once the variable is declared. Yours Pere ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] A GIMP book
On 23/08/07, Michael J. Hammel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you're interested in dicussing the book or issues related to the > GIMP, I set up a web site for the book: > http://www.graphics-muse.org/artistsguide/ That site looks like an unofficial blog- it does not due justice to the sample chapters that I saw. It makes me think that the book is as cheap as the website. Change it, quick! Dotan Cohen http://lyricslist.com/ http://what-is-what.com/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] A GIMP book
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:12:39 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > Very nice, the sample chapters were amazing. This seems to be written > for Gimp 2.2, but 2.4 will have significant changes. Can you (or the > author) address that issue? The first part of the introduction in the book covers this. It took 2 1/3 years to get the book published, so starting with 2.2 seemed reasonable at the time. Also, it will be some time before all the major distributions get updated to the requirements for 2.4 and have those distributions propogated to the general public. So even though 2.4 is due soon, 2.2 isn't disappearing soon from a great many users desktops. In the end, though, the changes for 2.4 don't greatly affect the tutorials. Mostly what changes is the location of menu options, which I believe I've addressed in the book but will update on the web site as I become aware of the errata. New features in 2.4 are not used in the tutorials (it's a 2.2 based text, after all) and none of the old features used in the tutorials went away. Mostly those features just changed slightly in appearance or work better "under the hood" in 2.4. If you're interested in dicussing the book or issues related to the GIMP, I set up a web site for the book: http://www.graphics-muse.org/artistsguide/ The book should just about be ready for shipping from retailers. I was just notified that my author copies will be sent soon. -- Michael J. HammelSenior Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://graphics-muse.org -- Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] jpeg compression levels
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:31:27 +0200, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need to make a JPEG "saved at a high quality setting (i.e. Photoshop > level 10 or above)". Since I don't know what Photoshop is ;), could > someone please tell me what the equivalent would be using GIMP? Here is a table that provides an approximate mapping between Photoshop quality levels and GIMP (actually IJG JPEG library) quality levels: Adobe Photoshop quality 12 <= GIMP quality 98, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 11 <= GIMP quality 95, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 10 <= GIMP quality 93, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 9 <= GIMP quality 91, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 8 <= GIMP quality 90, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 7 <= GIMP quality 89, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 6 <= GIMP quality 90, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 5 <= GIMP quality 89, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 4 <= GIMP quality 88, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 3 <= GIMP quality 88, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 2 <= GIMP quality 87, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 1 <= GIMP quality 86, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 0 <= GIMP quality 85, subsampling 2x2 Some remarks: - I designed this mapping in a way that is a rather pessimistic for GIMP. It tries to be "at least as good", which means that in practice you could reduce the GIMP quality by a few points and still get about the same quality level. - Photoshop includes several parameters in a single "quality" setting, while GIMP provides separate controls for the "quality level", the choice of subsampling and other parameters hidden in the Advanced options in the JPEG dialog. It is likely that future GIMP versions (after 2.4) will also offer a simplified interface by default and hide the current quality slider inside the advanced options. - Subsampling 1x1 and 2x2 are short ways to write "1x1,1x1,1x1" and "2x2,1x1,1x1" that you find in the GIMP JPEG dialog. - If you still intend to do more work on the image, you should never just save it as JPEG. Always keep a copy in XCF format (GIMP's native file format). - Because of the change of subsampling, Photshop quality 7 uses a "GIMP quality level" that is lower than Photoshop quality 6. This may seem strange, but apparently the Photoshop developers designed the quality levels to be related to the expected file size rather than the quality of the JPEG quantization. - The default GIMP quality level is 85. This matches the worst quality level for Photoshop (quality 0). This is not really true because of the different subsampling (GIMP uses 2x1 by default, which is better than 2x2) and because the mapping that I described here is rather pessimistic for GIMP. But level 85 is good enough in most cases and the default Photoshop quality levels are designed for high-quality storage, not for publishing on the web. - Photoshop includes a totally different quality scale in its "Save for web" interface. It goes from 0 to 100 (like in GIMP) with the following mapping (again, rather pessimistic for GIMP): Adobe Photoshop Save for web 100 <= GIMP quality 98, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 75 <= GIMP quality 92, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 50 <= GIMP quality 86, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 25 <= GIMP quality 72, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 0 <= GIMP quality 51, subsampling 2x2 - Setting the GIMP quality level to 95 or higher is a waste of disk space and/or bandwidth. - Setting the GIMP quality level to anything below 50 is a bad idea. - I just saw that the GIMP user manual has a very confusing description for the subsampling parameter and it is not even correct. I will try to fix that soon. This is probably way more information that you were expecting. The short answer is: set your GIMP quality level to 93 or higher (but in fact, 90 should be OK). And set the subsampling to 1x1,1x1,1x1. -Raphael ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] A GIMP book - What GIMP version does it cover?
Hi Dotan, >> Hi Gimp-user, >> >> A friend sent me a link to a new GIMP book, "The Artist's Guide to >> GIMP Effects" to be published this month. There was a reference to it >> in the Javascript book he was reading from the same publisher. The >> sample tutorial looked good. >> >> http://nostarch.com/frameset.php?startat=gimp >> >> Just thought I'd pass it on. >> DC> Very nice, the sample chapters were amazing. This seems to be written DC> for Gimp 2.2, but 2.4 will have significant changes. Can you (or the DC> author) address that issue? That's a good question. I don't have the specific answer. The searching I did on the web site and amazon, didn't seem to come right out and say it. The Table of Contents starts out with, "Looking Ahead to GIMP 2.4". It is being published this year. Hhhmmm... Perhaps we can get a response from the list. Thank you. PS: I think your message only came to me and not the list, so in my reply I made sure the "To:" address was "Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU". -- __ DJ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] jpeg compression levels
Hello, I need to make a JPEG "saved at a high quality setting (i.e. Photoshop level 10 or above)". Since I don't know what Photoshop is ;), could someone please tell me what the equivalent would be using GIMP? TIA, Andrew ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp 2.3.18 and script-fu errors
On (22:49 22/08/07), Pere Pujal i Carabantes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> put forth the proposition: > El dc 22 de 08 del 2007 a les 12:43 +0100, en/na David Woodfall va > escriure: > > I have just downloaded and tested two scripts and get the same error with > > each: > > > > Error: Set!: Unbound variable: new > > > > The scripts are gm-invert and gm-solarize. Is there some incompatability > > with newer versions of Gimp and these scripts? Is there an easy way to > > perhaps edit the scripts to get them working? > > If you can not wait for them to be fixed, > the lamer way: just have to change on both files > > (set! new (car(gimp-layer-copy layer 1))) ; Add an alpha channel > by > (define new (car(gimp-layer-copy layer 1))) ; Add an alpha channel > > Works thanks. Is set!/define the only difference with the new script engine? I edited a few more and all seems well. -- "The porcupine with the sharpest quills gets stuck on a tree more often." ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] PNG vs JPG
> 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 in e.g. Wikipedia (and numerous other sites): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG HTH, Michael -- GMX FreeMail: 1 GB Postfach, 5 E-Mail-Adressen, 10 Free SMS. Alle Infos und kostenlose Anmeldung: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freemail ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
