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
  #21  
Old February 18th 18, 04:56 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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
Portable Network Graphics is a raster graphics file format
that supports lossless data compression.


| (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.)

Yes. It's not 100%. It's just an arbitrarily standardized
scale of 0-100. Or sometimes 100-0. (In some
programs I might save at 85 while in others at 15.)

I have limited experience with photography,
but I have got into RAW images. Better cameras
seem to offer TIF format for images. The best offer
RAW. Very interesting stuff. It somehow records
the sensor data rather than pixels. So you can
push and pull the data to what you need before
reducing it to pixels. The first time I tried it, I
took a picture of a cyclamen in a dimly lit room.
I was able to pull out acurate green and magenta hues
color in RAW. If it had been JPG or TIF I would have
only been able to get brighter pinkish greys instead
of magenta.



  #22  
Old February 18th 18, 05:12 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:
[]
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.


CRT or LCD?

| 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


Yes; I've yet to buy (or use at work!) a digital camera where one of my
first actions is to change the default resolution to other than the
maximum. (I use higher resolution when I _need_ it.) But I'm very much
in the minority in this: virtually everyone I know takes all pictures at
maximum resolution.

need to buy a 4 TB hard disk because the 2 TB is full.


It's not just the storage space needed: needlessly big images take a lot
longer to load, and then to zoom, pan, and so on. But we dinosaurs
haven't grasped the point: technology will just improve the speed of
processors, and the size and access speed of storage, such that such
considerations become irrelevant. Which I have to accept, though I hate.

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.


And for the use they're putting them to, there wouldn't _be_ a point (in
keeping bitmaps). Their pictures are probably looked at no more than
[insert your number of choice here; I'd say between 5 and 10] times.

| (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?

I can't remember. It _was_ some time ago! The novelty at the time was
the fact that it _had_ the built-in drive; the novelty looking back, was
the ability to turn the backlight off. I don't _think_ they were 256
colours, though I'm pretty sure they _were_ JPEG, so not _that_ small.
(I think it might have been 1 or 2 megapixel [though for the uses we
had, I suspect I selected VGA a lot of the time].)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish trial by
jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
  #23  
Old February 18th 18, 05:37 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:

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


Yes; I've yet to buy (or use at work!) a digital camera where one of my
first actions is to change the default resolution to other than the
maximum. (I use higher resolution when I _need_ it.) But I'm very much
in the minority in this: virtually everyone I know takes all pictures at
maximum resolution.


with very rare exception, always shoot at maximum resolution.

you can always downsize later. reshooting images at a higher resolution
is anywhere from difficult to impossible.

need to buy a 4 TB hard disk because the 2 TB is full.


It's not just the storage space needed: needlessly big images take a lot
longer to load, and then to zoom, pan, and so on.


only if you have a very slow mechanical drive.

with an ssd, there is no perceptible delay, even for *very* large
images.

But we dinosaurs
haven't grasped the point: technology will just improve the speed of
processors, and the size and access speed of storage, such that such
considerations become irrelevant. Which I have to accept, though I hate.


it already has.
  #24  
Old February 18th 18, 05:37 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:

| 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.


you aren't actually still using a crt, are you??

get an lcd asap. even a not very good one will be sharper.

unfortunately, your winxp systems don't support hi-dpi displays.



| (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?


the cameras were *horribly* slow and shot vga to 1mp jpegs. they were
absolute junk. later versions used mini-cds, even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_M...ameras_with_st
orage_on_3.5"_floppy_disk
  #25  
Old February 18th 18, 05:37 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:


I have limited experience with photography,
but I have got into RAW images. Better cameras
seem to offer TIF format for images.


very few cameras offer tiff, mostly because it's a complete waste.

The best offer
RAW.


most cameras now offer raw, including iphones and even some compact
point & shoots.

the cheapest cameras generally don't, mainly because the demographic
who buys cheap cameras aren't interested in a raw workflow.

Very interesting stuff. It somehow records
the sensor data rather than pixels. So you can
push and pull the data to what you need before
reducing it to pixels. The first time I tried it, I
took a picture of a cyclamen in a dimly lit room.
I was able to pull out acurate green and magenta hues
color in RAW. If it had been JPG or TIF I would have
only been able to get brighter pinkish greys instead
of magenta.


technically, it's sensels (sensor element) but most people call it
pixels. it's the same number either way. the distinction is not
important.
  #26  
Old February 18th 18, 05:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
ultred ragnusen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

wrote:

Looking yourself into a single crop ratio is volunteering into silly
dogma!


The goal is a simple to use tool on Windows that has a GUI that is easier
to use than is the slow and cumbersome slide-under-the-bridge aspect ratio
GUI of Microsoft Photos.

All that is needed is a simple crop, that has a button to restrict it to a
given aspect ratio.

The Gimp, never an easy to use tool, for example, has an aspect ratio tool.
http://www.shallowsky.com/blog/2009/Feb/05/
https://w0.dk/~chlor/www/schou.dk/li...-aspect-ratio/
http://helperthisis146.weebly.com/bl...nload-programs

But the goal is a simpler to use Windows free aspect ratio crop, at least
simpler (and faster) than Microsoft Photos or The Gimp.
  #27  
Old February 18th 18, 06:23 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

| 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.
|
| CRT or LCD?

LCD. Like TVs, they have threaded holes on the
back to accomodate mounting hardware. So I
made a drawer of sorts, then mounted that with
steel drawer slides under a shelf over my desk,
also taking off the base. So it's right in front of
me and can slide in about a 2' range. I wouldn't
want to try that with CRT.


  #28  
Old February 18th 18, 06:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
JJ[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:05:37 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

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?


I meant, it stores 24bpp images pixels in a DWORD storage. How other pixel
formats are stored is not wasteful. e.g.

- 1bpp: each pixel is stored in a 1-bit storage. i.e. 8 pixels per byte.
aka. packed pixels.

- 4bpp: each pixel is stored in a 2-bit storage. i.e. 2 pixels per byte.
aka. packed pixels.

- 8bpp: each pixel is stored in a byte storage. i.e. 1 pixel per byte.

- 16bpp: each pixel is stored in a WORD storage. i.e. 1 pixel per 2 bytes.

- 32bpp: each pixel is stored in a DWORD storage. i.e. 1 pixel per 4 bytes.

15bpp pixel is also stored in a WORD storage. That's 6.25% waste, but it's
an acceptable waste.

I know that BMP only stores image pixels uncompressed (lossless). IIRC,
support for compressed image pixels such as ZIP, TIFF, JPEG, or others, is
not part of the original BMP image format specifications.
  #29  
Old February 18th 18, 06:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
JJ[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:44:24 -0500, nospam wrote:

nope. a bmp is a representation of an image.


Nope. BMP is a container of an image.

It's what all other formats decompress
to.


false.


For you who uses Mac OS, that would be true - including *nix OSes. But not
for Windows and IBM OS/2.

there
is also the issue that a given raw format might not be readable at some
point in the future, whereas jpeg always will be.


I find it difficult to believe that no software in the future will be able
to read older image formats - no matter how hard the software developers try
to.
  #30  
Old February 18th 18, 06:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.windows7.general
JJ[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 22:47:32 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

It depends on the situation. A BMP *is* the image.
You can compress it as a TIF if you don't want to use
the space, but the format is not wasteful. It's just
not compressed. It's what all other formats decompress
to. It's what gets displayed onscreen. It's the actual
image data of a raster image. Surely you knew that?


I know that BMP stores image data uncompressed. But I also know that it
stores a 24bpp (RGB) pixel in a DWORD (4 bytes) storage. That's 25% waste.

However, I do know that it's for performance purpose.
 




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 09:15 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.