|
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one second. batch conversion / advanced / etc This worked. if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- http://www.bb2002.it :) ............ [ al lavoro ] ........... |
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
In message 12,
Ammammata writes: Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su alt.windows7.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one second. batch conversion / advanced / etc This worked. if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:? I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one exception for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView has lacked for some time: it has undo, but only one level.) I've downloaded it. Whether I ever get round to trying it, who knows (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway. - Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August |
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from | the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one exception | for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView has lacked | for some time: it has undo, but only one level.) | I think this has been talked about before. Once you need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a case of diminishing returns. The learning curve is somewhat extreme with graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a limit. For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions of PSP, and probably other good software. No one needs to try to shoehorn graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part, are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so there's a lot of software around. George P has presented a good example of what IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV. But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen, crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor rather than trying to do all that in IV. To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago when the functionality it provides wasn't available without paying a fairly high price. Windows could display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was about it. FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit silly. They're trying to maintain an outdated business model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS would be claiming I can't legally write a business letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own business cards with their software. FastStone is claiming I can only use their software to look at pictures and can't do anything that could somehow lkead to someone making money. Which means I couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy licensing limitation. |
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
In article , Mayayana
wrote: For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions of PSP, and probably other good software. No one needs to try to shoehorn graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited Adobe products. except that they're not limited nor overpriced. in fact, they cost about the same as psp with similar functionality, but why let that detail get in the way of a rant. |
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 03:49:59p, *J. P. Gilliver (John)* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:? maybe George P "cares" about his computer and doesn't dare to install something new ;) or maybe my English is slowly getting worse... -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- http://www.bb2002.it :) ............ [ al lavoro ] ........... |
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
In message , Mayayana
writes: [] I think this has been talked about before. Once you need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a case of diminishing returns. I find it does virtually all I need to do. I'd need a very good reason to invest (and sorry to sound like "Arlen Holder" here, but "invest" includes learning time) in anything else. The learning curve is somewhat extreme with graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a limit. For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions of PSP, and probably other good software. No one needs to try to shoehorn graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to But I, for one, am glad they have (-:! jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to I'd certainly agree with that. spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part, are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so there's a lot of software around. George P has presented a good example of what IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no Not necessarily: "lossless JPEG crop" is possible. (Including in IrfanView; I don't know if just the basic IV or with the plugins, since I always install both anyway.) It is slightly restricted in that it limits the crop sizes (to a multiple of 16 pixels I think). plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV. But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen, crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor rather than trying to do all that in IV. IV has a batch processing ability, which can do some of those things (not sure which; I think I've only ever used it to rename). Obviously if he wanted to do _different_ things to each image it'd be no use, the same applying to any batch processing anything else can offer too. To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago when the functionality it provides wasn't available without paying a fairly high price. Windows could display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was about it. Ignoring prejudices related to business models and general philosophy, are you saying the actual software is older or newer than IrfanView? [Or aren't you commenting on that, just having a rant (-:?] FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit silly. But very common among software. They're trying to maintain an outdated business model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS would be claiming I can't legally write a business letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own business cards with their software. FastStone is claiming I can only use their software to look at pictures and can't do anything that could somehow lkead to someone making money. Which means I couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy licensing limitation. Each to his own opinion! (I'm not disagreeing with any of the _facts_ you've stated: yes, in theory, those are all true.) Many years ago, I did actually buy IrfanView because I liked it and was using it a lot, and I also even bought it for my employer, so I could use it at work with no worry (I never actually told them I'd done so, or claimed the cost back). I think FastStone is significantly more expensive, though (though I've no idea what IV costs these days so may be wrong there). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6 |
Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | I find it does virtually all I need to do. I'd need a very good reason | to invest (and sorry to sound like "Arlen Holder" here, but "invest" | includes learning time) in anything else. No argument here. Graphic editors are tremendously complex and take a long time to get the hang of. the better ones are very easy to use. | George P has presented a good example of what | IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't | care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to | damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and | resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no | | Not necessarily: "lossless JPEG crop" is possible. (Including in | IrfanView; I don't know if just the basic IV or with the plugins, since | I always install both anyway.) It is slightly restricted in that it | limits the crop sizes (to a multiple of 16 pixels I think). Yes. If you want to split hairs. But in general a JPG is lossy. It's already damaged in being a JPG. So there won't be many cases where a lossless JPG crop is relevant. false. It might look fine, but a lot of data has already been dumped out, even at top quality. (0 or 100 quality number, depending on which tool you use.) That's important when you're trying to do operations like saturation or brightness. Even in the best JPGs you'll see little rectangles (blended pixels) when you zoom in. false. subtract the highest quality jpeg from the original and you'll see there is *very* little difference. | IV has a batch processing ability, which can do some of those things | (not sure which; I think I've only ever used it to rename). Obviously if | he wanted to do _different_ things to each image it'd be no use, the | same applying to any batch processing anything else can offer too. Yes. Anything he's doing in batch mode is general, with no concern for quality. That's fine. There's a place for that. Like I said, that's what IV is great for. also false. batch mode does not affect quality. it just automates what would otherwise have been done one by one. Big changes happened as PCs matured. More good and free software destroyed the shareware market. It's not a matter of philosophy. It's just a matter of changes in the landscape. I was also affected by that change. Shareware doesn't sell anymore. People don't need to pay for the software they use. they do if they want quality. although there are exceptions, most free software is not particularly good. maybe that's why you are having difficulties figuring out how to use your graphic editor. There's very little software I've paid for. BootIt. Paint Shop Pro. Visual Studio 6. But even some versions of VS can be had for free these days in the form of "express" versions. Free and OSS products provide most of what most people need. the many billions of dollars spent for software say otherwise. (Thus, the cloud. If companies could keep selling new updates for the high prices they used to get then there would be no cloud. Cloud is just a land grab being marketed as futuristic technology.) false. Yes, indeed. If you go to the store and pay 10 times the going rate for a light bulb in order to be "licensed" to use it in a lamp at work, that's no skin off my back. And if you buy carrots at $10 or 5 pounds each for the company picnic.... that's your choice. :) But this licensing is a scam. I don't point it out because I like to rant. I point it out so that poor suckers like you or me don't end up being tricked into paying $10 for a carrot, or $500 for an office suite they don't need. Or $40 for an image viewer they don't need. too bad you don't understand what you claim to be pointing out. nobody is paying 10 times the going rate for anything. |
JPG/Mayayana "discussion" (was: Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner)
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | It might look fine, but a lot of data has already | been dumped out, even at top quality. (0 or 100 | quality number, depending on which tool you use.) | | [Does it have _no_ lossless compression setting?] No. If you try a small sample you can see it. I just tried it with a 30x90 button BMP that's a gradient image. Saving it as JPG and then zooming 15x shows an entirely different pattern of pixel colors. jpeg was designed for real world photos, not pixel peeping 30x90 pixel buttons with a gradient, and you probably didn't choose the highest quality either. An interesting aside to this: IBM just bought Red Hat. I think it was something like $15B. try again. it was $34b. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/tech/ibm-red-hat/index.html |
JPG/Mayayana "discussion" (was: Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner)
"pyotr filipivich" wrote
| Red Hat sold tech support. You need a change, they'd provide it | "for a fee". Or you could write it yourself. Open Source. | I don't know all the details, but it sounds to me like they were twisting the rules a bit, selling an OS with support while giving away Fedora. It's not really so different from Microsoft. The latter sells a product and provides support free. The former sells support and provides the product free. https://www.redhat.com/en/store Pretty expensive for free stuff. :) They also have subscriptions. What are they selling if Linux is OSS? Apparently they *officially* sell their trademarked artwork (Red hat logos) because that's the only part that one can't share with friends. One can have Red Hat free from CentOS, minus the logos. Giving it away, along with patches, then selling support separately, would have been the honest approach. Just as Google's Android is based on Linux and theoretically OSS. Yet who can actually choose how it runs? Phone makers in the US are required to install Google's software. In the EU they only recently got the right not to. In some ways that's more restrictive than Windows. And the spyware is undoubtedly much worse... Good old OSS. |
JPG/Mayayana "discussion" (was: Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner)
In article , Mayayana
wrote: Giving it away, along with patches, then selling support separately, would have been the honest approach. Just as Google's Android is based on Linux and theoretically OSS. Yet who can actually choose how it runs? Phone makers in the US are required to install Google's software. no they aren't. In the EU they only recently got the right not to. wrong on that too. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com