On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:24:53AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no idea what would be a good way to implement this, or how the
> user interface could look. Probably one would need to keep a bitmap of
> dirty pixel blocks (or whetever they are called), and when saving, i
I think it would be a very useful feature to be able to open a JPEG in
the GIMP, do some editing that touches just a small minority of the
pixels like correcting red-eyes, and save just the edited parts,
keeping the rest of the JPEG unchanged. (Not talking about individual
pixels, of course, but t
Jon Winters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The only manipulation I can think of that would benefit from "lossless"
> jpeg would be rotating the image. (if I were shooting low-rez) I
> remember seeing some tools at the JPEG F.A.Q. site that would rotate a
> JPEG without damage. http://www.faqs.org
If I start with an image out of my digicam and it is already in JPEG
format I'll save it as an .xcf or .xcf.gz. When I'm finished makin
changes then it gets prepped for the web. (crop, scale, and jpeg
compression)
The only manipulation I can think of that would benefit from "lossless"
jpeg woul
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:37:14PM +0100, Nick Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 01:20:50AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > As such, why save an image if you didn't change it?
>
> There is no good reason why a PROFESSIONAL graphic designer should be
> doing it, but lots of
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 01:20:50AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> As such, why save an image if you didn't change it?
There is no good reason why a PROFESSIONAL graphic designer should be
doing it, but lots of us are mere amateurs :)
JPEG works one tile at a time. The same behaviour I observe in o
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:30:47PM +0100, Nick Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't true, IJG documentation and home made tests show that, for
Yes, this is true. You (and the ijg group) assume that the image does not
change between the load/save cycle.
> This isn't guaranteed, but will u
(although this is as a reply to Marc's post I only noticed it in the
more recent replies, sorry if that screws up threading for anyone)
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:46:03PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> I don't think this really is so much of a problem. Saving a jpeg in the same
> quality as it was
