GIFs and JPEGs

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

dplax got me fixed up with my Dragonfly and now I have the program he suggested. I don't have much of a clue as to how to use it, but I'll mess around with it.
I was a bit surprised that it lost detail by getting smaller. I thought that would make the image sharper?

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Callum: An I wasn't converting from PNG... from BMP

Are you sure of that? Most of the images at the site you posted are either GIF or PNG.
On a side note, do not ever pay attention to the file "extension". It is useless. It is crap. It does not control what type of file it is, nor does it necesarily reflect it. To find out what type of file something realy is, look in Firefox's View Page Info (either through the context menu, or the Tools menu). On the Media tab, it will list every file on the page, and the details include the type that the file is being served as. This is usually right, because it controls (in all non-IE browsers) what the browser treats it as.

[dplax]

Originally posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood: dplax got me fixed up with my Dragonfly and now I have the program he suggested. I don't have much of a clue as to how to use it, but I'll mess around with it. I was a bit surprised that it lost detail by getting smaller. I thought that would make the image sharper?

It must have lost detail, because it wasn't made smaller and being kept in proportion at the same time. IW has a limit of 225*155 pixels for a sig and I had to downsize the sig to that. Since it did not have the same proportions, one of the sides needed to be compressed a bit more than the other. This might have caused loss of detail. Also an image might become less detailed when you make it smaller as you have less pixels, to include the same amount of detail.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

You probably noticed I inverted the colours of my sig. I had to guess at the percentage to reduce the pic because when I enter the 225 the other number changes too. So I couldn't just type in the new size. Is there an easier way to achieve that?

[dplax]

If you uncheck preserve aspect ratio then you can enter the size you want.

[ 11-24-2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: dplax ]

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Oh, ok, I'll check that. I've been messing with it a bit and getting more familiar with it.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by LennonCook: Iron Greasal - Bloated? GIMP? Wow. Apparently you and I define "bloat" differently. [img]smile.gif[/img] Infact, the only problem with GIMP is that its interface is kindof wierd. But, you get used to it. All I would want from it would be to have a multi document interface...

Well, by bloated I mean that from those 17 grillion utilities and thingies, I use 10 or so. It has so much that I don't need.

And what is this "multi document interface"? What does it do?

[ 11-24-2004, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Iron Greasel ]

[Callum]

Well I have absolutely no clue what the Hell any of GIMP does... but I'll teach myself... slightly hindered by the fact that my help files haven't installed...

[Beaumanoir]

Save everything as PNG format. Easy.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by LennonCook: Iron Greasal - Bloated? GIMP? Wow. Apparently you and I define "bloat" differently. [img]smile.gif[/img] Infact, the only problem with GIMP is that its interface is kindof wierd. But, you get used to it. All I would want from it would be to have a multi document interface...

Well, by bloated I mean that from those 17 grillion utilities and thingies, I use 10 or so. It has so much that I don't need.

And what is this "multi document interface"? What does it do? [/QUOTE]Multi document interface = more than one image open in a single window. Tabs, basically. The only think that bothers me about the interface realy is how many windows it opens. I would like the option to have a more conventional view, with a fixed-position toolbox. But, from what I've read online, the developers are reluctant to change it, even in the way of giving a choice. But, we can't have everything. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Re the bloat aspect, I see what you mean, kindof. But to me, bloat is more about memory footprint and feature creep. Ok, sure, GIMP has hundreds of features, but the developers don't seem to have put all of them in because "more features == better", but rather because "these features == better".