Re: JPEG quality factor - some remaining odds and ends

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:38:40 +0100
yahvuu <yahvuu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> II. Range of actually useful values for IJG quality value
> 
>     For GIMP's target users less than half of all possible settings are useful:
>     http://yahvuu.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ijgqualityrange.png
>     or, in ASCII:
> 
>       0
>       .
>       .  no-go: blocky garbage
>       .
>      60
>       .  if in dire need
>      80
>      90  the sweet spot
>      95
>       .  no-go: just wastes disk space -- ever heard of XCF?
>     100

Sorry. I use 100 because the photo labs that I use for online printing only accept image upload in jpg format. 95 may be good enough, but for 80x60cm prints, I don't want good enough.

-- 
Jon Senior <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Index of Archives]     [Video For Linux]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [gtk]     [GIMP for Windows]     [KDE]     [GEGL]     [Gimp's Home]     [Gimp on GUI]     [Gimp on Windows]     [Steve's Art]

  Powered by Linux