On 14.06.19 10:49, Simon Budig wrote:
>> Well, I opened that and then saved it as a .xcf.bz2 file and it was
>> 10% of the original.
>>
>> Pretty reasonable to me?
>
> Well, yeah. But this is not what Johannes is talking about, he is
> questioning the performance of the builtin compression of XCF.
Owen (owen.c...@gmx.com) wrote:
> > On 13.06.19 22:25, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> >
> > > I've recently created an XCF template file that almost only contains
> > > large slabs of solid colors (i.e., no "picture"), couple of layers and
> > > layer masks. I was surprised to find that the XCF compressed
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 03:36:03 +0200
Owen wrote:
> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:28 AM
> > From: "Johannes Bauer"
> > To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Large XCF filesize
> >
> > On 13.06.19 22:25, Johannes Bauer w
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:28 AM
> From: "Johannes Bauer"
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Large XCF filesize
>
> On 13.06.19 22:25, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>
> > I've recently created an XCF template file that almost onl
On 13.06.19 22:25, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> I've recently created an XCF template file that almost only contains
> large slabs of solid colors (i.e., no "picture"), couple of layers and
> layer masks. I was surprised to find that the XCF compressed this rather
> poorly, even though this should be a
Hi there,
I've recently created an XCF template file that almost only contains
large slabs of solid colors (i.e., no "picture"), couple of layers and
layer masks. I was surprised to find that the XCF compressed this rather
poorly, even though this should be an ideal case for lossless compression.
