On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:58:50 +0200, Graeme Gill <graeme2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:33:34 +0200, Tor Lillqvist <tml@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> There are some scenarios in which blindly reusing the quality factor >> guesstimated from loading an image is not a good idea, even if the >> guesstimate is very accurate. (Which happens when the loaded image's >> quantization tables exactly match the JPEG standard's sample tables >> scaled in libjpeg's manner with said factor). > > Why try and merely match the tables ? Use them by default. Only > replace them if the user changes quality settings. > > Graeme Gill. Yes, I agree. I think that would be an additional improvement to gimp's jpeg quality. It may be somewhat more work that just deciding what jpeg_quality we should be using. Although futher improvement of the way gimp handles jpeg may calm some of the "let's stop the user working with jpeg" crowd. Certainly it would be prefeable to improve the jpeg quality rather than crippling gimp and restricting the user. (no pun intended) /gg _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
