| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
this is not really a Gentoo-specific question, but some of you know your way |
| 4 |
around stuff, so here goes. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
When I edit photos, I like to shrink and recompress them to save on space, |
| 7 |
but not mangle them too much in the process to lose quality. So for average |
| 8 |
images I tend to use a quality setting between 80 and 86, very bad shots |
| 9 |
such as defocussed or blurred ones just 70. And for the really good ones |
| 10 |
(crystal sharp, portraits, extraordinary motives etc) 90 and more. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In the far past I’ve been using Gimp, but for some years now mostly Showfoto |
| 13 |
(the editor from Digikam) due to its more useful photo enhancement features. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
However I noticed that the latter procuces larger files for the same quality |
| 16 |
setting. So currently, I first save with a very high setting from Showfoto |
| 17 |
and then recompress the whole directory in a one-line-loop using |
| 18 |
imagemagick’s convert. I have the impression that it produces far smaller |
| 19 |
files at the same visual quality. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Now I know that one can’t fully compare quality settings of different |
| 23 |
encoders, but it started me wondering: which is really “better”? Or maybe |
| 24 |
just a little more enhanced, or up-to-date from an algorithmic standpoint? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Just because many distros and tools use libjpeg, that doesn’t mean it’s the |
| 27 |
best one out there. Gimp, showfoto and convert use different encoders, |
| 28 |
because compressing the same PNG with the same JPEG setting does not result |
| 29 |
in three identical files. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Does any of you have an opinion on that matter? |
| 32 |
Cheers. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ |
| 36 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
What do you call a man with a seagull on his head? – Cliff. |
Archives