It can be all done in GIMP,
in windows i rightclick to resize files using
There isn't a "BMP standard", which is part of the problem. The nearest one gets is Microsoft's specification for a Device Independent Bitmap (DIB) as described by the BITMAPINFOHEADER structure:
Richard.
What standard?
Without knowing what the crop will be it is hard to say that is true.
Yet they let digital cam pics on with a mere ~8M pixels.
Or use an editor that does screen resolution manipulation for preview and working on and then applies the edits to the full resolution image as required.
Indeed, "MS" and "Standard" do not often make happy bed fellows in a sentence. Once can only really go by what software they have produced and also chosen to document.
Ah ok, its grown a bit... I don't recall seeing the JPEG or PNG options last time I looked at that (although that would have been several years ago).
JPG unless you have seriously big storage or can use a raw digital format.
He's wrong about BMP, but the files can be HUGE.
well you can scale DOWN more or less exactly..but scaling up will at best just lead to a large fuzzy image. Not jaggy, but fuzzy.
you can use some compression algorithms that are lossy inside of it. LZW which is the most ubiquitous, is, I believe, not lossy.
Most bureas will dumpo on a flash stick if you have one. Its our preferred way to move large bitmaps about.
The Natural Philosopher wibbled on Wednesday 27 January 2010 01:02
Yes, it's not lossy and it's probably the best general purpose algorithm at the moment in terms of compression ratio - better than bzip2 on non text files and faster decompression.
I was referring to Denis's assertion that TIFF is uncompressed. Hence, what's the advantage of uncompressed TIFF over uncompressed bitmap for a given size and colour depth?
MBQ
snipped-for-privacy@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
It illustrates that your pedantry is misguided.
Not only common, I would hazard a guess that it's the market leader.
No need, professional software enginners have already done it for a very popular software package.
GIYF, if you want a clue.
MBQ
Anna, I think you need to be a bit careful with all the info here. BMPs and TIFFs are lossless and in theory, your pictures will be zoomable without degradation for longer than with JPGs, BUT, this all depends on the default settings used by the photolab to produce your CDs.
It may well be that BOOTS etc. will scan at a much lower DPI if you ask for BMPs or TIFFs so that they can get the same number of images on a disk. If this is the case, you'll actually get *worse* images than if you ask for JPGs. It all depends on what they do.
Hopefully they will put fewer bigger images on your disks as requested but I'm willing to bet that the machines as set to certain presets that will need to be changed for you and you need to be absolutely certain that the operator can do this.
A dangerous assumption. ;-)
Tim
messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@a12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
So say what it is then, we would all like to make sure we don't accidently throw image data away.
I think you just don't understand the difference between image compression like jpeg and data compression like LZW. A hint a TIFF file using LZW has no image compression applied.
The last film I had done in ASDA had a CD too, it was pretty poor, the jpgs were only about 100kbytes which doesn't give a good image. Waste of 99p and you couldn't ask for bigger files, etc. They were OK on 7" photo frame.
snipped-for-privacy@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Like I said GIYF. If you're incapable of find Photoshop or the GIMP in Google, given the hints, then what are you capable of?
They both include jpeg options for TIFFs.
I fully understand the difference.
It has lossless compression applied to the image data.
MBQ
It has no image compression and that is all we are concerned with.
In any case why would anyone bother to use GIMP's save as TIFF with jpeg compression rather than saving it as jpeg? If someone asks for a TIFF file they probably don't want a jpeg.
I don't have the time (or the patience) to slog through the (so far) 56 responses to this so-ancient-it's-prehistoric question (no offence Anna), but:
JPG, every time. Your andy-man will scan them at a high quality. You yourself can reduce the JPG quality later (and/or scale the picture sizes) if you want a set of smaller files: as you will: see below
For some these-days-unfathomable reason, a lot of Windows applications still default to saving images in the BMP format -- thus creating IMMENSE files, and file storage problems.
The crux is: what are your images? If you're scanning family portraits high quality JPGs are more than good enough, and when you come to send 'em off to your relatives by email you can save a 2.5MB JPG file to maybe 90K or less (depends how interesting your relative's face is: does he have a big beard? =more detail = bigger JPG). 90K-200K is perfect for emailing, and no discernible loss of quality, for use on normal computer screens, viewed at normal sizes; IF your relative would then like a PRINT of that picture, you send the original high-quality JPG to the firm who do the printing: that's the only reason you want a high-quality image.
Other people who want high-quality lossless images are professional photographers or publishers, and scientific researchers who are dealing with electron-microscope images. These people do NOT use BMP: they use TIFF. They want to lose nothing, not even the dust on the slide, so that they can choose what to analyse and to remove for themselves. Their filesizes are typically many megabytes.
Finally, in this little promotion for JPG, try this: get a fullsize TIFF (or BMP if you insist) image; look at it on your screen, at screen size (i.e. image filling the screen).
Now take a JPG conversion of the image: see any difference? Check the filesize difference while you're about it.
Now save your JPG at (say) 80% quality and see the "notorious" JPG "lossy" format have its effect, as the filesize shrinks. Now look at your reduced quality image at screensize. See any difference? (for all practical purposes)?
People talk about JPG being "lossy" as it if it were about to make scuffy black and white prints of your beautiful colour slides. Rubbish! It's "lossy" only for professional image manipulators. Most of us in this world (including those with fancy digital SPRs, entering photographic competitions) are *more* than happily served by JPG.
And don't forget to reduce your scanned JPGs to little versions for emailing, thus reducing the load on emails systems, and disk storage.
Cheers John
(A Mac user)
snipped-for-privacy@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I suggest you get a clue as to what "image compression" means before making statements like that.
You really don't get ot do you?
They *are* saving the image as jpeg. They are then using the features of TIFF to encapsulate that jpeg image, probably with other data that is associated with the image.
MBQ
OK. I took a reasonably balanced photo, lots of detail scanned with a negative scanner from colour 35mm by me, final resolution 3600x2400 and stored as a TIFF originally, and re-encoded it using GIMP with various options that are made clear in the file name.
Here are the results, sorted by size:
25M test-packbits.tiff 25M test-nocomp.png 25M test-nocomp.tiff 25M test.bmp 12M test-lzw.tiff 12M test-deflate.tiff 9.8M test-maxcomp.png 8.0M test-qual_100.jpg 2.0M test-jpeg.tiff 868K test-qual_70.jpgAll formats except the ones that mention jpg in the name are *non lossy*.
PNG wins without loosing quality - that is what I would choose (wasn't so common when I did those scans). LZW TIFF is close. Where the option exists, I chose 8 bits per colour (24 bit).
I would consider JPG, quality=70 useable for display purposes, but for archiving I would insist on max quality JPG if you really *must* use JOG but compressed PNG is so close, why bother?
Here's a background primer for Anna:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.