On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 16:35 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: [...] > IMO 50% increase in file size is not much for a file format that is > meant for archival and exchange of images. Archival - it'd mean an extra 20 gigabytes to back up for one of my "old books" archives for example. Interchange - the difference between 100 megabytes and 150 megabytes for an image seems at the least noticeable to me, and that's for an 8bit per channel grayscale image. (I'd be using 16 bits if the tools I had supported it a little better) > It's not that people are > likely to use OpenRaster files on web-pages or the like. Being able to > save quickly seems much more important than file-size here. I don't mind waiting 10 minutes to save a file for archiving, especially as GIMP lets me do other things in the meantime. My vote here is for exposing it in the UI, as with export to PNG, as it's clearly different for different people. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
