![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ultred ragnusen wrote:
wrote: When opening a JPG, Fastone insists on an obnoxious full screen mode. I couldn't find a way to turn that horrid always-full-screen setting off. Try the Associated Image setting. The default is "Full Screen". Change it. https://s14.postimg.org/ftqehnrld/faststone.gif Paul |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ultred ragnusen Wrote in message:
wrote: But the goal is a simpler to use Windows free aspect ratio crop, at least simpler (and faster) than Microsoft Photos or The Gimp. ImageMagic should do that on the fly from the command line... https://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php Thank you for that on-topic suggestion of Imagemagick's "transform" command, even as I think the helpful suggestion from the alt.comp.freeware poster of how to force the aspect ratio in an Irfanview crop is likely to be the easiest we'll find for Windows aspect-ratio cropping. I think of Imagemagick as a command-line tool, but your suggestion deserves adequate exploration, where the command of choice seems to be the 'crop'. https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/crop/#crop Here is an example from that Imagemagick manpage: convert rose: -crop 40x30+90+60 crop_miss.gif This seems useful particularly as a batch command, when you know the position of the crop you wish to make on a bunch of files (which isn't the case in my original question). However, it's a useful alternative that should be noted, as ImageMagick is known to be powerful and fast freeware. I Ducked Imagemagick and Windows GUI and found this: http://codecpack.co/download/ImBatch.html I'm more of a Mac person and have not tried it but... -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"JJ" wrote
| (What _is_ the "native" format for | Macs then?) | | | Yeah, right... Ask an AppleSeed a technical question.... ![]() On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and being the best tool for a very narrow range of mostly commercial uses. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | (What _is_ the "native" format for | Macs then?) | | | Yeah, right... Ask an AppleSeed a technical question.... ![]() not only will they correctly answer it, but they won't resort to insults. On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and being the best tool for a very narrow range of mostly commercial uses. all false. pdf is an iso standard and apple is not paying licensing fees, one of the main reasons why they switched from dps to pdf. as usual, you do not understand what you're babbling about. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"nospam" wrote
| On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable | format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and | being the best tool for a very narrow range | of mostly commercial uses. | | all false. pdf is an iso standard and apple is not paying licensing | fees Who said anything about licensing fees? I don't mean expensive as in paying royalties. I mean expensive in that one needs software to make them and the best software is very expensive. By contrast, one can write HTML or DOCs or TXT for free. (I'm not even getting into the strangeness of you thinking PDF is an image format.) PDF has one specific strength: Accurate printing. It's for things that need to be printed, like legal or business docs. It's overused for another reason: Because it's relatively immutable compared to things like DOCs or TXT or HTML. Thus it's preferred for commercial documents where the author wants to prevent change to the content. In other words, it's mainly a format for use in business and official docs, to be shared with "consumers". |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mayayana
wrote: "nospam" wrote | On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable | format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and | being the best tool for a very narrow range | of mostly commercial uses. | | all false. pdf is an iso standard and apple is not paying licensing | fees Who said anything about licensing fees? I don't mean expensive as in paying royalties. I mean expensive in that one needs software to make them and the best software is very expensive. By contrast, one can write HTML or DOCs or TXT for free. no additional software or payments of any sort are required. you *clearly* don't understand how pdf is used in mac os and how it fits into the grand scheme of things, and what's worse, you aren't interested in learning anything. (I'm not even getting into the strangeness of you thinking PDF is an image format.) i said it's the native file format, and it is. PDF has one specific strength: Accurate printing. It's for things that need to be printed, like legal or business docs. pdf is *much* more than for printing. much, much more. pdfs can contain video with sound. how do you plan on printing that? the rest of your ignorant babble snipped. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Mayayana
writes: "nospam" wrote | On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable | format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and | being the best tool for a very narrow range | of mostly commercial uses. (-: [] (I'm not even getting into the strangeness of you thinking PDF is an image format.) I can remember when a lot of scanning software, especially that accompanying scanners aimed at office use, _did_ _default_ to .pdf - even to the extent that it was sometimes quite difficult to make it produce anything else (though I don't _think_ I came across one where you couldn't at all). I suppose it did have _some_ justification where the scanner had a sheet feeder. The _other_ justification usually given at the time, that everybody has a .pdf reader but not everyone has a viewer for the image formats, I never accepted - it might have been true, but there were even then free image viewers easily available. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Dook, that was great but I think the line needs awe. Can you do it again, giving it just a little awe?" "Sure, George," said Wayne and looking up at the cross said: "Aw, truly this man is the son of God." (recounted in Radio Times, 30 March-5 April 2013.) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| I can remember when a lot of scanning software, especially that | accompanying scanners aimed at office use, _did_ _default_ to .pdf - My latest all-in-one is like that. Older scanners I had came with TWAIN applets that had to be used with graphic editors. The Envy is dumbed down. It defaults to save or "email" as JPG or PDF! I have to get into the settings to get a BMP. Even then, I can't import directly to PSP. I have to let it save a file to disk and then open that. But I think of that as a recent development. In a way I'm surprised it doesn't have "bluetooth this to your phone", for posting to Instagram. Email is so 00s. ![]() | The _other_ justification usually given at the time, that | everybody has a .pdf reader but not everyone has a viewer for the image | formats, I guess there's probably some truth in that. Nospam proclaiming PDF the default format of Mac is a good example. Most people have had Adobe Reader shoved down their throat via numerous software installs, but Windows has never had much of a built-in image viewer. Adobe have been very insidous in their spreading of Acrobat Reader. It's like Flash and Microsoft's ActiveX: A very clever and useful invention, but used to build monopoly, and neither company took responsibility when it turned out their inventions were malware magnets. Even now Adobe links PDF with javascript functionality, decades after they should have known better. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | The _other_ justification usually given at the time, that | everybody has a .pdf reader but not everyone has a viewer for the image | formats, I guess there's probably some truth in that. Nospam proclaiming PDF the default format of Mac is a good example. Most people have had Adobe Reader shoved down their throat via numerous software installs, but Windows has never had much of a built-in image viewer. you still don't get it. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana writes: "nospam" wrote | On the other hand, PDF seems a suitable | format for Macs: Expensive, locked, and | being the best tool for a very narrow range | of mostly commercial uses. (-: [] (I'm not even getting into the strangeness of you thinking PDF is an image format.) I can remember when a lot of scanning software, especially that accompanying scanners aimed at office use, _did_ _default_ to .pdf - even to the extent that it was sometimes quite difficult to make it produce anything else (though I don't _think_ I came across one where you couldn't at all). I suppose it did have _some_ justification where the scanner had a sheet feeder. The _other_ justification usually given at the time, that everybody has a .pdf reader but not everyone has a viewer for the image formats, I never accepted - it might have been true, but there were even then free image viewers easily available. [] But that's an abuse of PDF. It's simply a wrapper around an image format. You're relying on whatever the best compression options are available in the PDF, which might not be as good as the best separately-available image format. The main advantage of the PDF, is for lazy users who will not be repurposing the scan. The PDF can be easily printed with a useful scale, on the first try to a printer, without wasting paper. If you give a user an image file, it might take a couple tries before they get all the printing settings right. And for the people who just scan and attach a multi-sheet scan to an email, look at the convenience factor. It's less useful if you want to reuse the images for some reason. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rotation & aspect ratio | Jeff Layman | Digital Photography | 25 | August 13th 07 07:54 AM |
Nikon Capture 4: Aspect Ratio Cropping? | anonymous1 | Digital Photography | 1 | April 15th 05 02:47 AM |
Which Aspect Ratio | Mike Fox | Digital Photography | 6 | December 28th 04 01:53 PM |
Which Aspect Ratio | Mike Fox | Digital Photography | 0 | December 27th 04 10:42 PM |
3:2 Aspect Ratio | Roland Karlsson | Digital Photography | 12 | October 13th 04 04:42 PM |