GIMP :: Why Does Saves As JPG Default To Quality 85
Mar 23, 2012
I've noticed that every time I save an image in GIMP as JPG the qualityslider bar defaults to 85. Even though I keep changing it to 75. If thisnumeric value is a Photoshop equivalent like other GIMP features, then 85is probably a wasted effort. The research* I'm aware of* (note emphasis)says that the quality in JPG images saved at a level above 75 is"theoretical." In other words, the increased quality is there in technicalterms, but imperceptible to the human eye.
However, I have never been satisified, due to the amount of pixellation on the margins of lines, and with Xara, I am looking for an improvement.
Basically, I am using graphics programmes to animate lines onto a 'live' video background. I do that by preparing a blank green mask, and tracing, by means of a slightly lighter line, (which is still rendered invisible by the following 'chroma' process in video-editing), as a guide. The actual tracing out of route followed, and so-on is onto the green 'blank', in preparation for the usual 'green-screen' process, to follow in my video editing stage. The principle is well proven and produces authentic animation over a background which proceeds as normal video. (It is also possible over a still photograph). The raster used subsequently, is the AVCHD standard of 1920 x 1080, the animation is of clusters of from three to five frames per 'exposure' and the whole thing is rendered in mpg2 into a continuous video-clip, from which time it becomes 'video'.
However, each frame is required to be 'saved'. When I first tried 'Xara' I was chuffed that the most recent extensions to my ever-lengthening lines were so 'sharp', and that encouraged me to use a line of only 4 pixels width, but when the resulting animation frames were recalled for storage in preparation for the animation-proper, the lines had developed the usual pixellated 'steps-and-stairs' and pixels on both margins of the lines were in a no-man's land, being half-and-half green and a muddy half-white, (white being the line I have standarised on, for technical reasons of minimal 'bleeding' etc).
What I wish to preserve, is the crisp whiteness of the lines, and the finely pixellated line-margins I began with. I can, for example, broaden the line, but if I broaden it beyond 8px, or so, I am right 'back' where I was with 'the other graphics-programme'. I can, of course, double the size of the raster to 3840 x 2160, (and do, on occasions for static one-off shots), but there are excellent resource-hogging reasons, why I do not wish to do so for sequences of up-to 200 frames, at-a-time.
Am, I missing something somewhere, using a 'wrong' procedure, or simply asking too much of the software?
My problem is related with the quality of a image.
My question is how to maintain high quality (original quality) of a image after resizing it?
If i resize it with same ratio like:
2816x2112px to 1600x1200px (4:3) 2816x1584px to 1920x1080px (16:9)
Mainly i use scale image option in Gimp. But now i need to resize many images for my work so i tried David's Batch Processor to resize my images. After using it, i found there is some quality promble with the resized image.
Then i tried, the scale option with, use quality setting from original image and JPEG quality parameter is 95, in gimp but the problem is same. I did it with also with David's batch processor- JPEG quality parameter is 95.
Other thing is that, the original image 2816x2112px (4:3), size- 3.6 MB is displaying in image viewer with 47% and the resized image 1600x1200px (4:3). size- 1.2 MB is displaying in image viewer with 83%, So my questions are: How can i check the quality of a image after resizing it, means the image is exactly same as the original? Or Is David's Batch Processor maintain the original quality of the images after resizing?. I realy need to resize many images for my work.
Iv had gimp for awhile but just started messing around with animations. . .trying to make 100 x 100 avatar. Trying to learn as I go. I understand how to make the animation now and I need to change it to index mode etc. but it seems no matter what I do it saves looking smudged/blurry not crisp... not like the preview. I understand there are a limited amount of colors in gif... Iv been doing online searches and trying all the recommendations I seen. Everything from choosing the dithering option to saving each layer (its just 3 layers) as a .gif separately first and then adding them together... nothing seems to work. What else can I try?
GIMP 2.6.11 on both win7 and macos 10.6.x exports/saves (with "Save as...") .gif's with pinkish background hue; no apparent problem with .png export/save. fwiw, we did uncheck "Save background color" for .png's as per [URL] ... . See no such option for .gif's that we have yet to find.
What's happening and/or what we might be doing wrong for .gif's? (eg, monitor calibration, etc?)
I am doing lighting now. Everything is fine except a scene.When I open the scene,it's blank in the preview window but everything is here,just like the first picture.When I open again(didn't close the maya window),it's better but still blank in the default quality rendering,like the second picture.Until I switch to the high quality rendering mode,it just display something like the third picture.
Toady I've noticed that Gimp opens high quality jpg images in lower quality than their original ones.I made sure by opening the image using another software, and it gave me apparent good jpg quality that i expect.Please check attachments (see the red button).Noting that when i saved the opened image form Gimp using the maximum quality (100%), it saved in a lower quality that was on-screen visible when it was opened. it is a bug?
I've been using GIMP to make GIFs and they were okay until one day I realized the GIF quality was terribly reduced after I exported it. But everything seemed fine when I was in the process of making it (I never use any color transformation I normally just crop and resize image and that's it) when I used playback the GIF seemed okay but once after exported, the quality was very terrible. I couldn't understand why.
Every single GIF I make ever since faces the same problem. The animation playback and everything seem fine. Just I can never export the same quality GIF like what I see in the playback, every time it ends up with a low quality one. I re-install GIMP but that doesn't work at all. I download the latest version but that doesn't change anything either.
I have a design that is approx 9 inches by 11 inches @ 250 dpi. I would like to increase the print size for canvas to 16 x 20. My question is, after I create my new image for 16 x 20, if I scale up my picture (design) layer to 16x20, will that produce poor quality? Or am I just "stretching" the pixels?
In this tutorial, we will be adding color and definition to "drained" images, which are lacking it.
This tutorial is similar in concept to 14Stones's Cool Render effect (simple) tutorial which can be found here. I discovered part of this method a while ago, and it isn't really a secret, so I didn't copy 14Stones.
Anyway, I will be using this image:
It's nice, but is lacking.
First, duplicate your picture.
Next, on the the top one, Gaussian Blur it by 5 pixels and set the layer mode to overlay.
I made an animated gif but the quality is not as expected. Especially the company logo (wifocarr)I made 2 layers wich have good enough quality but when I did the following thing:
- filters - animation - optimize for gif the qualtiy really got worse.
Yes I am new with GIMP, I've been using it for a few weeks now. I always save my images in PNG format, sometimes GIF. I messed with the checkmarks when saving my image as PNG (the ones with gamma, interlacing, etc) one day and now when I save an image, the quality is poor, and the black brushes with surround the image are very pixelly and don't blend well into black backgrounds.
Any way to improve a photo in GIMP so that it can be printed in larger formats? Enlarging seems to be okay, adding a black bg and setting layer mode to overlay also seems to have worked, but as I am aiming at selling my photos, I want to be 100% sure I deliver a good enough product!
I understand GIMP may not be the best program to use to create business cards but as a start-up I need a cheap/free program!! Anyway I have designed the cards and am having them professionally printed but when I did a test print on my home computer, the quality seems very poor. Mainly the text is blurry. It looks fine on my screen though.
When I export a Web JPG from GIMP and it offers me a sliding Quality barthat goes 0 - 100. I want to know if that's an equivalent to the similar JPG quality setting in Photoshop? The reason I'm asking is that my research on Photoshop indicated that JPG output quality settings above 75 were"theoretical." In other words, there might be measurable improvements inJPG quality past 75, but they will be imperceptible by the human eye. If the Quality settings are basically the same in both pieces of software?
I just started using GIMP to try to design a business card that is of acceptable quality for printing. The company that's going to do the printing says they need to be 300 dpi or better. I know nothing about this. What filetype would be best for that purpose and what software I need to create a design quickly and easily?
Is there a way to change the color of a line without losing any of its sharpness/quality? I'm working on a black lineart image originally drawn with a tablet and the ink tool, which gave me really crisp, bold lines. Changing the color using any of the selection and fill tools results in a pretty strong downgrade in quality around the edges, which I would like to avoid. (Seriously, it's looking like I drew it in MSPaint at this point.) ? Or should I have planned out colors from the start?
I'm designing business cards and made my image to scale but when I try to print it says there are resolution problems. I'm not sure what to do. I set the print size to 3.5 inches wides by 2 inches tall but every time I upload it to the print company it say low resolution poor quality.
Is there any way I can scale images down in size, whilst keeping the quality of the image? I am a Media teacher having to use this software with the class and they must have high production values for their controlled assessment. However, I do not know how to get around the problem that all the work is predominantly blurred because students have scaled down the pictures resulting in horrendous blurring.
use of 'quality' and 'weight' under 'smooth stroke' in say dodge/burn tool. This option is available under some other tools too but I am not able to find the effect of these options even after scouring the net and could not find any difference after changing the default values.
Version GIMP 2.8.X from software centre of Ubuntu 13.04; no modifications, no extras.
So I couldn't think of a better place to put this. I have something that I'm thinking of having professionally printed. What are the steps I should take to make sure I produce a high quality image? File format, Dpi and so forth. Make a list of steps to creating a high quality image file that will look good printed from a print shop.
I'm pretty new to photoshop, and I've started on a personal project. I want to basically take a video still from a music video and turn it into a poster. Sadly i can not find a good quality version of the video as it is older and not super famous, (kyuss-one inch man). So i found an online video that is better then youtube but not great, and i captured it through the vista snipping tool (screen capture).
Basically I want to take this low quality picture, and turn it into a good quality poster (not huge). What techniques and things must I do? I'll probably have to find a printer near here and require a specific dpi as well.
so i thought i was smart and created some new brushes. added them no problem (or so i thought) but to my dismay i cannot find my default brushes; the only available ones are those i created. did my saving the new brushes somehow delete the core collection?
My printer company is insisting that I convert my image to a CMYK profile.
After a bit of googeling it seems that a good generic CMYK profile might be ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc
And I found a utility to to do the conversion (URL]. However this utility wants to know what the source colour profile is. So, what does the GIMP use? I.e. if I create a new .XCF and paste in some images and do a bit of painting etc, and then save it as a .JPG, what profile will it be in?
Is the answer none? But I still need something for this utility. Or is it sRGB? There seems to be several variations.
way to simplify the "save as" procedure. I found annoying to have to select say, PNG, from a long list... Gimp remembers the last filter (... reuse sharpen?) but not the last file format and folder?
I have just loaded 2.8 with much anticipation and found that the default toolbox is fixed on the right-hand side of the screen adjacent to the dock able toolbars.
Is this normal for 2.8? It seems weird that it would now be positioned on the right.
