A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 18th 18, 07:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:00:56 -0800, ultred ragnusen wrote:

Do you know of Windows freeware that has the option to easily lock in a 3:2
or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping?

[...]
I generally crop in Irfanview because it's so very fast & super easy
(click, click, crop), but there is no way to lock the aspect ratio for that
crop to 4:3 in Irfanview, nor in Pinta, MS Paint, or Paint 3D freeware.


In Irfanview:
# Create a pre-selection for your crop by Click&Drag with your mouse.
(Be sure, the upper left corner starts on the correct position.)
# Press Shift+c to get the CustomCrop dialog.
# Adjust the Crop to 3:2 ratio (or whatever ratio you like) and click
the button SaveAndDrawOnImage
# Fine-tune the extent of your crop by dragging the borders of the crop
with your mouse while *keeping the Alt key pressed*.
# If need be: Re-position the crop area by dragging it with the *right*
mouse button.

HTH.
BeAr
F'Up set to acf.
--
================================================== =========================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
================================================== =============--(Oops!)===
  #12  
Old February 18th 18, 12:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

In message , JJ
writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:50:48 -0500, nospam wrote:
This is designed to be simple, quick cropping and
resizing, while retaining the best possible image
quality when desired. (Crop a JPG and you'll
lose some quality,


not when it's a lossless or non-destructive crop.


That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive.


Other than that cropping obviously removes information, what do you
mean: I thought the non-destructive crop was just that (in the part of
the image you keep, obviously). Being as it (as implemented in
IrfanView, anyway) crops to the nearest 16 (I think it's 16) pixel
boundary. I assumed the reason it does that is t avoid loss.

but you can minimize the
loss, or avoid it by saving as BMP.)


and drastically increase its size.


IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better image
format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful.


In what way - does it use two 16-bit words, or something? Or do you just
mean it doesn't do any (even lossless) data-compression?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they
don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm"
  #13  
Old February 18th 18, 12:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
a format for storing photos. Similarly with GIF: It's
handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform,
but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit
color.

[]
Not quite: it reduces it to 8-bit _storage_, but it does that by using a
palette. I think the palette entries are at least 16-bit. Basically, it
reduce an image to 256 _colours_, but they're not the _same_ 256 for any
given image: a picture of a sunset, for example, will have a lot of
oranges and reds. And once the reduction has been done, there's no
_further_ compression (though some image editors - like, unfortunately,
IrfanView, which I think is great in most respects - tend to operate in
maximum-colours mode, so edit actions in them _do_ cause degradation
when resaved in GIF. But that's not the format's "fault"; if the editors
could be constrained to work in 256-colour mode, there'd be no loss).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they
don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm"
  #14  
Old February 18th 18, 03:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| a format for storing photos. Similarly with GIF: It's
| handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform,
| but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit
| color.
| []
| Not quite: it reduces it to 8-bit _storage_, but it does that by using a
| palette. I think the palette entries are at least 16-bit. Basically, it
| reduce an image to 256 _colours_, but they're not the _same_ 256 for any
| given image: a picture of a sunset, for example, will have a lot of
| oranges and reds.

I wouldn't argue with that. But it's still reduced to a
max of 256 colors. It's best for logos, cartoons,
simple images. A sunset will dither. (Remember the
old days on Windows monitors? If you used a sunset
desktop photo you would have had stripes.)

| And once the reduction has been done, there's no
| _further_ compression

As I understand it there is, but it's not lossy. It's
a formulaic system that will record things like "43
pixels of color #18" as a data record, rather than
using 43 * 3 bytes to record 43 pixels. It's very
efficient in that context because repeating pixels are
the norm.

(though some image editors - like, unfortunately,
| IrfanView, which I think is great in most respects - tend to operate in
| maximum-colours mode, so edit actions in them _do_ cause degradation
| when resaved in GIF. But that's not the format's "fault"; if the editors
| could be constrained to work in 256-colour mode, there'd be no loss).

That's just not true. Few 24-bit images use only
256 colors. Try this one:
https://www.jsware.net/Files2/sunsetMV.jpg

IrfanView says there are 100,627 unique colors there.
If I reduce to 256 colors in PSP I get something
like a comic book image, where Superman is in 3
colors.
There are 3 reduction routines down to 256 colors
and the effect varies with each, but all drop out a
tremendous amount of data. If I save as GIF from
PSP I get a pointilistic image. PSP16 does a slightly
smoother job of it than PSP5, but both end up
looking like a print from an old printer. And that
image started as a low quality JPG that had already
been resaved at least twice, so it wasn't a great
picture to begin with. It had already dumped a
lot of the richness. The degradation from the original
would have been heartbreaking to see.

To me that's a great example of the role of JPG
and GIF: Great for onscreen images that need to
be small and that need to be accessible across
platforms. I use GIFs a lot for diagrams. But they're
not good for much else. It would be crazy to store
photos as GIF in order to save space.

I find it kind of ironic when this topic comes up.
I don't think I've ever heard you say this, but whenever
I talk about conserving space on disk, many people
will respond with, "Ah, that's not worth the trouble.
Disks are so cheap these days!" Yet when it comes
to saving large images for a good reason, those
same people think it's crazy: "Takes up WAY too much
space!"

I suspect most people who feel that way are taking
loads of pictures with their phone. They just want
2,000 vacation photos to fit on disk. They have no
intention of doing any involved editing or printing of
those images, or even going through to dump the
bad ones, so they're happy with downgraded JPGs.



  #15  
Old February 18th 18, 03:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| a format for storing photos. Similarly with GIF: It's
| handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform,
| but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit
| color.
| []
| Not quite: it reduces it to 8-bit _storage_, but it does that by using a
| palette. I think the palette entries are at least 16-bit. Basically, it
| reduce an image to 256 _colours_, but they're not the _same_ 256 for any
| given image: a picture of a sunset, for example, will have a lot of
| oranges and reds.

I wouldn't argue with that. But it's still reduced to a
max of 256 colors. It's best for logos, cartoons,
simple images. A sunset will dither. (Remember the
old days on Windows monitors? If you used a sunset
desktop photo you would have had stripes.)


Yes, I had such a monitor (well, laptop).

| And once the reduction has been done, there's no
| _further_ compression

As I understand it there is, but it's not lossy. It's
a formulaic system that will record things like "43
pixels of color #18" as a data record, rather than
using 43 * 3 bytes to record 43 pixels. It's very
efficient in that context because repeating pixels are
the norm.


My bad - I meant loss, not compression.

(though some image editors - like, unfortunately,
| IrfanView, which I think is great in most respects - tend to operate in
| maximum-colours mode, so edit actions in them _do_ cause degradation
| when resaved in GIF. But that's not the format's "fault"; if the editors
| could be constrained to work in 256-colour mode, there'd be no loss).

That's just not true. Few 24-bit images use only
256 colors. Try this one:
https://www.jsware.net/Files2/sunsetMV.jpg


What I meant was: once an image has been reduced to 256 colours, then
any editing _that did not change the number of colours_ (such as
brightness or _possibly_ contrast tweaking) would not result in further
corruption if saved as GIF; once it's been reduced to 256 colours, then
anything further you do to it, _provided it doesn't result in an
increase in the number of colours_, can still be saves as GIF without
further degradation. The sort of things that _do_ result in
number-of-colours increase include blurring, including resizing
(especially down).

IrfanView says there are 100,627 unique colors there.
If I reduce to 256 colors in PSP I get something
like a comic book image, where Superman is in 3
colors.


Agreed. (Though it's subtle: I didn't notice it at first.)

There are 3 reduction routines down to 256 colors
and the effect varies with each, but all drop out a
tremendous amount of data. If I save as GIF from
PSP I get a pointilistic image. PSP16 does a slightly
smoother job of it than PSP5, but both end up
looking like a print from an old printer. And that
image started as a low quality JPG that had already
been resaved at least twice, so it wasn't a great
picture to begin with. It had already dumped a
lot of the richness. The degradation from the original
would have been heartbreaking to see.

To me that's a great example of the role of JPG
and GIF: Great for onscreen images that need to
be small and that need to be accessible across
platforms. I use GIFs a lot for diagrams. But they're
not good for much else. It would be crazy to store
photos as GIF in order to save space.


Agreed (though there are _some_ images that _don't_ lose a lot: mainly
ones without gradual shading).

I find it kind of ironic when this topic comes up.
I don't think I've ever heard you say this, but whenever
I talk about conserving space on disk, many people
will respond with, "Ah, that's not worth the trouble.
Disks are so cheap these days!" Yet when it comes


No, you'll rarely hear me say that, as I come from the bygone era (my
first computer had 1K of memory; before that, the first one I worked on
had 16 memory locations). I will _sometimes_ concede that view when
discussion of time versus resources comes up, but given the choice and
time, I'll go for saving space where practicable. (Actually, more in MP3
files than images; my eyesight, touch wood, has not deteriorated with
age other than the ability to close-focus, but my hearing _has_ lost
top, and/or I haven't had speakers capable of great top for some time.)

to saving large images for a good reason, those
same people think it's crazy: "Takes up WAY too much
space!"

I suspect most people who feel that way are taking
loads of pictures with their phone. They just want
2,000 vacation photos to fit on disk. They have no
intention of doing any involved editing or printing of
those images, or even going through to dump the
bad ones, so they're happy with downgraded JPGs.

My 'phone - a cheap one (a DooGee) - has, IIRR, a 6M camera. It takes
pictures I consider considerably inferior to those I take with my 3M
Fuji with a reasonable lens - which I usually have set to 1M size (JPEG
that is).

When you say they want "vacation photos to fit on disk", do you mean "to
fit on _a_ disc", i. e. to make a CD (or, I guess these days, a DVD), to
give to friends/relatives?

(I remember using a Sony camera at work, that had a floppy drive built
in - and you could get several pictures on, of acceptable quality! [That
camera also had something I've never seen before or since: the ability
to use ambient light to backlight the display.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
  #16  
Old February 18th 18, 03:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive.
|
| Other than that cropping obviously removes information, what do you
| mean: I thought the non-destructive crop was just that (in the part of
| the image you keep, obviously). Being as it (as implemented in
| IrfanView, anyway) crops to the nearest 16 (I think it's 16) pixel
| boundary. I assumed the reason it does that is t avoid loss.
|

It's a clever method, but in general editing JPG
is lossy. How often will one need to crop to the
nearest 16 pixels but have no reason to do other
editing? If one will do other editing then the image
should be taken out of JPG format. So it's a kind of
silk purse from a sow's ear thing.

Nospam was just arguing, splitting hairs. It's
really all he does.

| IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better
image
| format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful.
|
| In what way - does it use two 16-bit words, or something? Or do you just
| mean it doesn't do any (even lossless) data-compression?

It has no compression. It's very straightforward.
In general a BMP will be a 24-bit, uncompressed
image. (There are other options, but they're no
longer used as far as I know.) The header looks
like so:
-----------------------------------------
BITMAPFILEHEADER '14 bytes
bfType As Integer (file "magic": "BM")
bfSize As Long
bfReserved1 As Integer
bfReserved2 As Integer
bfOffBits As Long (offset to start of image)

BITMAPINFOHEADER '40 bytes
biSize As Long
biWidth As Long
biHeight As Long
biPlanes As Integer
biBitCount As Integer
biCompression As Long
biSizeImage As Long
biXPelsPerMeter As Long
biYPelsPerMeter As Long
biClrUsed As Long
biClrImportant As Long

----------------------------------------
So, 54 bytes for the header. Following that are
the bytes that represent pixels. The header is just
enough to interpret the image data. So bytes 55-58
will be the first pixel, and so on:
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 (byte numbers)
00 00 FF 00 00 FF 00 00 FF (3 red pixels, using big endian
notation. Blue is in the high byte. Green is in the middle.)

That's what all raster images are. Pixel grids. Bitmaps.
No raster image format stores anything different. They
just store it in different ways, with varying degrees
of damage to the image. JPG degrades the image to make
it compress better, with less color variety. GIF reduces
to 256 colors and compresses that. (256 colors requires
an embedded color table, which takes up extra space,
but then each pixel can be stored as a single byte.)
I don't know how PNG works but I'm guessing it's
basically a BMP in a ZIP, with the addition of alpha
channel data (transparency) requiring 4 bytes per pixel.
(GIF, by contrast, stores transparency data by indentifying
one specific color that's not to be painted onscreen.)
TIF, likewise, is basically a BMP in a ZIP. (Though a ZIP
can often shrink a BMP by 90%, while a TIF seems to only
manage about 50%. I don't know why.)

They're all just ways to store a BMP. None of those
image formats means anything until the BMP is extracted.
One can't render a JPG onscreen any more than the words
of a ZIPped Word DOC can be read from the ZIP bytes.
It has to be decompressed to get the BMP.

Similarly, when one applies filters in an editing program
it's just a math formula applied to the bitmap bytes.
Sharpening increases the difference between the numeric
values. Interpolation for resizing calculates a new pixel
grid by examining the values of neighboring pixels.
Lightening increases the byte values of the pixel bytes.
It's all just math operations on 3-byte RGB pixels stored
as grids in a BMP.

In other words, the idea that BMP is outdated is a
misunderstanding of what raster images are.


  #17  
Old February 18th 18, 04:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

That's what all raster images are. Pixel grids. Bitmaps.
No raster image format stores anything different. They
just store it in different ways, with varying degrees
of damage to the image.


there is no damage.

JPG degrades the image to make
it compress better, with less color variety.


it's entirely up to the user what the jpeg quality/compression level
is, and at its highest quality, a jpeg is indistinguishable from the
original. this is very easy to demonstrate, should you not believe it.

GIF reduces
to 256 colors and compresses that. (256 colors requires
an embedded color table, which takes up extra space,
but then each pixel can be stored as a single byte.)


a colour table takes up very little space.

I don't know how PNG works


clearly.

but I'm guessing it's
basically a BMP in a ZIP, with the addition of alpha
channel data (transparency) requiring 4 bytes per pixel.


nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

(GIF, by contrast, stores transparency data by indentifying
one specific color that's not to be painted onscreen.)


true, and primitive.

TIF, likewise, is basically a BMP in a ZIP.


nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF

(Though a ZIP
can often shrink a BMP by 90%,


bull****.

simple logos with large areas of solid colours might shrink that much,
but certainly not with photos. logos would be better served with a gif
or png, not a zipped bmp.

while a TIF seems to only
manage about 50%. I don't know why.)


yep. you sure don't.

They're all just ways to store a BMP. None of those
image formats means anything until the BMP is extracted.


wrong.

One can't render a JPG onscreen any more than the words
of a ZIPped Word DOC can be read from the ZIP bytes.
It has to be decompressed to get the BMP.


decompressed, yes, but no bmp.

Similarly, when one applies filters in an editing program
it's just a math formula applied to the bitmap bytes.
Sharpening increases the difference between the numeric
values. Interpolation for resizing calculates a new pixel
grid by examining the values of neighboring pixels.
Lightening increases the byte values of the pixel bytes.


that part is mostly true. it's more complex than that, but i'll spare
you the details.

It's all just math operations on 3-byte RGB pixels stored
as grids in a BMP.


what you *refuse* to understand is that it doesn't have to be (and
normally is *not*) a bmp.

also, 3 bytes is horribly outdated. these days, it's two bytes per
component or it's a floating point value, with each pixel often having
more than 3 components (rgba, cmyk, hexachrome, etc.)

In other words, the idea that BMP is outdated is a
misunderstanding of what raster images are.


any misunderstanding is entirely with you.

bmp is obsolete. period.
  #18  
Old February 18th 18, 04:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive.
|
| Other than that cropping obviously removes information, what do you
| mean: I thought the non-destructive crop was just that (in the part of
| the image you keep, obviously). Being as it (as implemented in
| IrfanView, anyway) crops to the nearest 16 (I think it's 16) pixel
| boundary. I assumed the reason it does that is t avoid loss.
|

It's a clever method, but in general editing JPG
is lossy. How often will one need to crop to the
nearest 16 pixels but have no reason to do other
editing? If one will do other editing then the image
should be taken out of JPG format. So it's a kind of
silk purse from a sow's ear thing.


Often, an image is only available as a .JPG: it might have been received
in an email as such, or downloaded from a website; or, the majority of
cameras other than those sold for the serious professional (with
appropriate pricetags) do _not_ offer raw bitmap formats. (They
sometimes offer three _quality_ levels.)

Nospam was just arguing, splitting hairs. It's
really all he does.


Well, we all - including you and I, definitely - dislike imprecision,
especially if it actually results in an untruth being stated (even if
unintentionally). What level of simplification versus imprecision is
acceptable, varies from person to person and between situations: in
other words, one man's desire for precision is another man's
hair-splitting. I can't say I've registered nospam as _particularly_
irritating in that respect, but that's mainly because I tend not to
remember people's levels unless they're _particularly_ irritating (in
which case I'm likely to killfile them, and haven't with him yet), so
you _may_ be right.

| IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better
image
| format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful.


Re-reading that, I do agree it's oversimplifying - there _is_ no better
format _in terms of accuracy_.
|
| In what way - does it use two 16-bit words, or something? Or do you just
| mean it doesn't do any (even lossless) data-compression?

It has no compression. It's very straightforward.
In general a BMP will be a 24-bit, uncompressed


I was giving the benefit of the doubt: I thought he might have meant
he'd found a case where it used 4 bytes to store the 3 byte information,
or something. If he just means it does no lossy compression, I'd agree
with you; if he means it does no loss_less_ compression, then he should
have made it clearer that that' what he was referring to.

image. (There are other options, but they're no
longer used as far as I know.) The header looks

[]
I _think_ the two-level (one _bit_ per pixel) form is still supported
(e. g. by IrfanView), though I'm not sure if it includes a palette for
the two colours. (I _think_ GIF does have such [and 2- and 4-bit - 4 and
16 colour - modes.)

That's what all raster images are. Pixel grids. Bitmaps.

[Long section snipped - I presume written for readers other than me.]
They're all just ways to store a BMP. None of those
image formats means anything until the BMP is extracted.
One can't render a JPG onscreen any more than the words
of a ZIPped Word DOC can be read from the ZIP bytes.


Good analogy! (Though I'd have probably said text file.)

It has to be decompressed to get the BMP.

Similarly, when one applies filters in an editing program
it's just a math formula applied to the bitmap bytes.
Sharpening increases the difference between the numeric
values. Interpolation for resizing calculates a new pixel
grid by examining the values of neighboring pixels.
Lightening increases the byte values of the pixel bytes.
It's all just math operations on 3-byte RGB pixels stored
as grids in a BMP.

In other words, the idea that BMP is outdated is a
misunderstanding of what raster images are.

Well, I'm not sure if PNG can be lossless. (Actually, I'm not sure if
JP[E]G can; I know the quality slider in IrfanView can be pushed up to
100%, but I think that still involves some loss.)

Then, of course, there are vector images (like good old HPGL, as well as
more modern ones) - let alone fractals! But for actual pictures taken
with a camera, they're all going to be bitmap rasters in the first place
anyway.

[Actually, use of the word raster reminds me: true rendering of
*archive* _video_ material (i. e. shot with a CRT camera) ought to
involve a _slightly_ slanted raster - which, I think, no modern
rendering does.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And every day in Britain, 33 properties are sold for around that price [a
million pounds or so]. - Jane Rackham, RT 2015/4/11-17
  #19  
Old February 18th 18, 04:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:


Well, I'm not sure if PNG can be lossless.


of course it can.

(Actually, I'm not sure if
JP[E]G can; I know the quality slider in IrfanView can be pushed up to
100%, but I think that still involves some loss.)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG
  #20  
Old February 18th 18, 04:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| What I meant was: once an image has been reduced to 256 colours, then
| any editing _that did not change the number of colours_ (such as
| brightness or _possibly_ contrast tweaking) would not result in further
| corruption if saved as GIF; once it's been reduced to 256 colours, then
| anything further you do to it, _provided it doesn't result in an
| increase in the number of colours_, can still be saves as GIF without
| further degradation.

I guess that's true. It works when doing things
like diagrams. But I find that anything more
complex, even a screenshot, really needs to be
kicked back up to 24-bit color if I want to work
on it. For instance, brightening a screenshot.
That will need more than 256 colors to do. So
I have to revert back to 24-bit and then
resave it later.

| I find it kind of ironic when this topic comes up.
| I don't think I've ever heard you say this, but whenever
| I talk about conserving space on disk, many people
| will respond with, "Ah, that's not worth the trouble.
| Disks are so cheap these days!" Yet when it comes
|
| No, you'll rarely hear me say that, as I come from the bygone era (my
| first computer had 1K of memory; before that, the first one I worked on
| had 16 memory locations). I will _sometimes_ concede that view when
| discussion of time versus resources comes up, but given the choice and
| time, I'll go for saving space where practicable. (Actually, more in MP3
| files than images; my eyesight, touch wood, has not deteriorated with
| age other than the ability to close-focus, but my hearing _has_ lost
| top, and/or I haven't had speakers capable of great top for some time.)
|

I wish I could switch with you. I don't listen to
music in general and usually keep the audio turned off on
my computer, but my eyesight is getting worse. I
recently mounted my monitor on a drawer slide because
I was leaning forward so much it was hurting my neck.
now I just sit down and pull the monitor toward me...
So I can't lean forward. Though I'm not sure what
the radiation from that close display might be doing to
my eyes.

| When you say they want "vacation photos to fit on disk", do you mean "to
| fit on _a_ disc", i. e. to make a CD (or, I guess these days, a DVD), to
| give to friends/relatives?

No I just meant that a lot of people are constantly
taking 10MB phone shots and then want to save them
on their computer. The people who complain that they
need to buy a 4 TB hard disk because the 2 TB is full.
They don't edit. They don't cull their collection. They
also don't resize the images for better storage. They
don't really get the system. They just think of it as
"photos" that came from their phone and went onto their
hard disk. It's like the people who invite you for dinner
and have a 7' high bookcase full of photo albums.
("These 3 albums are little Ricky's christening. Wait'll
you see! And it was so cheap at the drugstore to
get all the shots printed!")

For someone like that, who's not familar with file
formats and doesn't edit photos, a BMP would just
be a JPG that's very big. They wouldn't see the
point.

| (I remember using a Sony camera at work, that had a floppy drive built
| in - and you could get several pictures on, of acceptable quality! [That
| camera also had something I've never seen before or since: the ability
| to use ambient light to backlight the display.])

Wow. 1.44 MB? They must have been small images.
But I suppose they were also 256 colors?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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 02:53 PM
Which Aspect Ratio Mike Fox Digital Photography 0 December 27th 04 11:42 PM
3:2 Aspect Ratio Roland Karlsson Digital Photography 12 October 13th 04 04:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.