Sent: 2009-07-02 21:43:26 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: alec

batches for web

permalink

Howdy...
I finally installed David's Batch Processor (after months of trying to
figure out how to do batches) but I'm surprised that I don't see an
option for changing resolution. I'm simply trying to prepare
images(lots of them) for the web. Did I miss something in Daves
Batches? Or maybe someone has a link to something else that would work
for me? Thanks!
-Alec

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-02 22:06:45 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: Sven Neumann

batches for web

permalink

Hi,

On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 15:43 -0400, alec wrote:

> I finally installed David's Batch Processor (after months of trying to
> figure out how to do batches) but I'm surprised that I don't see an
> option for changing resolution. I'm simply trying to prepare
> images(lots of them) for the web. Did I miss something in Daves
> Batches? Or maybe someone has a link to something else that would work
> for me? Thanks!

Resolution (as in dots-per-inch) is irrelevant for images used on
web-pages. The only thing that counts is the number of pixels.

Sven

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-02 22:38:53 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: Jay Smith

batches for web

permalink

On 07/02/2009 04:06 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 15:43 -0400, alec wrote:
>
>> I finally installed David's Batch Processor (after months of trying to
>> figure out how to do batches) but I'm surprised that I don't see an
>> option for changing resolution. I'm simply trying to prepare
>> images(lots of them) for the web. Did I miss something in Daves
>> Batches? Or maybe someone has a link to something else that would work
>> for me? Thanks!
>
> Resolution (as in dots-per-inch) is irrelevant for images used on
> web-pages. The only thing that counts is the number of pixels.
>
>
> Sven

But... resolution is important for print output ... which is something I
am interested in.

So I think Alec's question still stands.

Jay

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-07 06:27:23 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: alec

batches for web

permalink

Hi...

Akkana Peck wrote:
> Does Resize not do what you want? (I don't have DBP installed
> right now, but I thought it could scale images and looking
> at the web page I would guess Resize is what does that.)
Do you have a link to that plugin? I've searched quite a bit and David's
Batch processor has seemed the best so far, but I'm still(after a couple
years now) new to GIMP.
>
> ...Akkana
>
Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 15:43 -0400, alec wrote:
>> I finally installed David's Batch Processor (after months of trying to
>> figure out how to do batches) but I'm surprised that I don't see an
>> option for changing resolution. I'm simply trying to prepare
>> images(lots of them) for the web. Did I miss something in Daves
>> Batches? Or maybe someone has a link to something else that would work
>> for me? Thanks!
>
> Resolution (as in dots-per-inch) is irrelevant for images used on
> web-pages. The only thing that counts is the number of pixels.
>
Huh, I thought that lower resolution would make the file size smaller so
web images would load faster. No?

Thanks-
Alec

>>

_______________________________________________
>> Gimp-user mailing list
>> Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
>> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-07 07:41:08 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: Bob Long

batches for web

permalink

alec wrote:

> Akkana Peck wrote:
[..]

>> Resolution (as in dots-per-inch) is irrelevant for images used on
>> web-pages. The only thing that counts is the number of pixels.
>>
> Huh, I thought that lower resolution would make the file size smaller so
> web images would load faster. No?

Depends what you are *really* referring to.
See http://www.scantips.com/basics01.html

--
Bob Long
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-07 13:47:05 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: Michael Schumacher

batches for web

permalink

> Von: alec

> > Resolution (as in dots-per-inch) is irrelevant for images used on
> > web-pages. The only thing that counts is the number of pixels.
> >
> Huh, I thought that lower resolution would make the file size smaller so
> web images would load faster. No?

Absolute resolution (aka 'image size'): yes

Relative resolution (aka 'pixels per inch'): no

See also "72 dpi myth", e.g. at http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html

HTH,
Michael

--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-08 01:15:55 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: Patrick Horgan

batches for web

permalink

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Sent: 2009-07-08 03:19:41 UTC (over 2 years ago)

From: David Gowers

batches for web

permalink

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> The truth is that Gimp displays to you using your screen resolution, so if
> you originally created an image at 72dpi and 216x216 pixels and another
> image at 4800dpi and 216x216 pixels, Gimp will display them the same.
Sort of true, see below..

> While
> they look the same, if you look at image properties with or
> set the disply units to inches in the bottom border and move around the
> image, you can see the difference.  One is reported as 3" across and the
> other as .045" across.  The resolution is used by Gimp to translate to
> inches and inch derived units for you.
>
> If you go into image/resize, and only change the dpi, Gimp will report to
> you that the image is a different size in inches, but the pixels are not in
> any way changed.
>
> Various image file types like jpg and png store resolution and Gimp does
> store that for you.  Devices are supposed to scale the images so that on
> their display resolution they will appear the same size as in the images
> native resolution.  Some devices/software actually do this.

Like GIMP (toggle View->Dot for Dot off). When Dot for Dot is off,
GIMP displays the image at a scale matching the comparitive
resolutions of the screen and the image.

>  If you print
> something and it comes out the wrong size, some times you can open it in
> Gimp, change the resolution and resave.  The only change will be in the
> stored resolution, the file's image data is completely unchanged, yet it
> will now print a different size!

_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user