Cropping 50 images to the same bottom left corner

I need to crop 50 Windows screen shots to the bottom left corner.
The initial screen shots were taken with Irfanview on Windows.
I can't do them again as the conditions have changed.
Is there an easy method to crop 50 images using the same dimensions?

In article , George P
wrote:

I need to crop 50 Windows screen shots to the bottom left corner.
The initial screen shots were taken with Irfanview on Windows.
I can't do them again as the conditions have changed.
Is there an easy method to crop 50 images using the same dimensions?

batch crop in lightroom.

"George P" wrote

|I need to crop 50 Windows screen shots to the bottom left corner.
| The initial screen shots were taken with Irfanview on Windows.
| I can't do them again as the conditions have changed.
| Is there an easy method to crop 50 images using the same dimensions?

IrfanView can crop them if you give it a height
or width, but if you have different sizes that might
not work.

www.jsware.net/jsware/pprep.php5

(Shareware but free with nag screen at start.)

Open the options window and select a custom
crop dimension, if necessary.
Drop the folder of images onto the window.
Check the option to crop.
Select the orientation and ratio.
Choose whether you want BMP result or JPG
in a choice of resolutions.

Process the images.

Note that if you now have JPGs you're going
to lose resolution each time you process them.
Depending on what you need, and how much you're
going to work on the images, you might want
to save as BMP. You can then make a final save
in JPG if you need small file size or PNG/TIF if
you want a more compact file but don't want
to sacrifice quality.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Note that if you now have JPGs you're going
to lose resolution each time you process them.

nope.

what's lost is *quality*, not resolution, and with the highest quality
jpeg, it's almost indistinguishable.

George P wrote:
I need to crop 50 Windows screen shots to the bottom left corner.
The initial screen shots were taken with Irfanview on Windows.
I can't do them again as the conditions have changed.
Is there an easy method to crop 50 images using the same dimensions?

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one second.
batch conversion / advanced / etc

George P wrote:
I need to crop 50 Windows screen shots to the bottom left corner.
The initial screen shots were taken with Irfanview on Windows.
I can't do them again as the conditions have changed.
Is there an easy method to crop 50 images using the same dimensions?

If the composition of the shot is not changing,
then Irfanview itself has a batch processor with
crop capability.

if the crop target is moving, and you want to
zoom into some moving portion of the tutorial, you'd
need a different tool flow for that. I think some
video editing tools have had "trajectory" capabilities,
to follow moving stuff. But I've never needed such a thing.

It's important to compose your tutorial shots, so that
the post-editing will be easy. Once I start a tutorial, I
try not to move the focus of the session around on the
screen.

*******

I would never printscreen 50 times. I use FFMPEG and
the gdigrab screen recording capability, and record
video as individual pictures ("A00001.jpg" "A00002.jpg"...).
I've recorded as many as 60,000 images in a single
folder, using FFMPEG for capture.

Then, I use Avidemux 2.5 to walk through the video.
I take the frame count off the bottom of the screen,
then flip over to the folder of images and pull the
corresponding A00xxx.jpg picture. In that way, I only
have to "fish" for the exact images I want. Rather than
processing 50 images and throwing away most of them,
I have a tremendous trove of pictures, and the
time I spend, is the time to locate each desired
image after the tutorial is done. Maybe I only have
to note the frame numbers of five frames, then
go grab the like-named file from its folder for
my uploads.

Avidemux has a crop capability. You could crop the
entire folder of images.

I can even capture a few seconds worth and show an example.
In a Command Prompt window...

cd /d F:\TEMP2 # holds ffmpeg.exe and my images

ffmpeg -framerate 1 -f gdigrab -i desktop -f image2 -q:v 1 -c:v mjpeg a%05d.jpg

Press control-c to end capture.

Then I can capture a particular frame later.

I just made my meta tutorial.

1) setting the crop filter in Avidemux 2.5

crop-filter.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/tg7RCwM2/crop-filter.gif

2) Use Avidemux to open the folder of jpegs.
Set the Crop Filter. Save the entire bucket of frames
as an AVI movie sequence.

Open the AVI file again with avidemux.
Save the (cropped) AVI as a sequence of individual frames again.

In the example, I want the name to be a00xxx style, and I only
have to type the letter "a" for the filename, as Avidemux will
append the unique portion after that.

select-jpeg-sequence-to-save.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/VvPzg6LV/select...ce-to-save.gif

3) Now that I have my second folder of cropped JPGs,
I can go back to reviewing the AVI movie (out.avi), frame by frame.
Here, I think frame 11 captures my point well, so
I note I need picture number 11 from the output folder

preview-the-movie-look-for-candidates.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/nrxt7P38/previe...candidates.gif

4) Here, I've double-clicked a0011.jpg in the crop output folder,
and examine my handy work. It opens in Picture and Fax viewer.
The image looks good, so I'm ready for upload (or something).

verify-cropped-image-is-a-good-one.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/L52rhZs2/verify...a-good-one.gif

HTH,
Paul

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:43:58 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one second.
batch conversion / advanced / etc

This worked.

I had used Irfanview before to take the screen shots but it was
complicated to calculate the original x and y positions and width and
length by hand.

In this batch conversion / advanced / screen there was a lovely button
named ^Get current sel.^ which ran the X/Y/Length/Width calculation for me
from a sweep of the rectangular area of the largest needed area.

I did not know of this automatic x/y/length/width calculator until now!

Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio news cosa ha scritto:

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one
second. batch conversion / advanced / etc

This worked.



if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm



--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

In message 12,
Ammammata writes:
Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 02:06:52a, *George P* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio news cosa ha scritto:

I just tried it with Irfan on 30 photos and it took less than one
second. batch conversion / advanced / etc

This worked.



if you dare to try faststone, it has similar functions

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:?


I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from
the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one exception
for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView has lacked
for some time: it has undo, but only one level.)

I've downloaded it. Whether I ever get round to trying it, who knows (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I've now looked at it (well, the webpage - I've not installed it); from
| the list of features, it looks _very_ like IrfanView, with one exception
| for me: multilevel undo/redo. (Which is something IrfanView has lacked
| for some time: it has undo, but only one level.)
|

I think this has been talked about before. Once you
need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor
and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can
do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a
case of diminishing returns.


The learning curve is somewhat extreme with
graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to
stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a
limit.

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to
jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to
spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part,
are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so
there's a lot of software around.

George P has presented a good example of what
IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't
care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to
damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and
resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no
plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He
doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly
crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV.
But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen,
crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc
then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor
rather than trying to do all that in IV.

To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier
time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago
when the functionality it provides wasn't available
without paying a fairly high price. Windows could
display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was
about it.
FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit
silly. They're trying to maintain an outdated business
model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather
than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS
would be claiming I can't legally write a business
letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own
business cards with their software. FastStone is
claiming I can only use their software to look at
pictures and can't do anything that could somehow
lkead to someone making money. Which means I
couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at
work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy
licensing limitation.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to
jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products.

except that they're not limited nor overpriced. in fact, they cost
about the same as psp with similar functionality, but why let that
detail get in the way of a rant.

Il giorno Tue 30 Oct 2018 03:49:59p, *J. P. Gilliver (John)* ha inviato su
alt.windows7.general il messaggio . Vediamo
cosa ha scritto:

Would you care to explain why you used the word "dare" (-:?

maybe George P "cares" about his computer and doesn't dare to install
something new

or maybe my English is slowly getting worse...

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I think this has been talked about before. Once you
need multi-undo, you probably need an image editor
and not a viewer. IV is a wonderful program that can
do all sorts of things, but using it as an editor is a
case of diminishing returns.

I find it does virtually all I need to do. I'd need a very good reason
to invest (and sorry to sound like "Arlen Holder" here, but "invest"
includes learning time) in anything else.

The learning curve is somewhat extreme with
graphic editors, so a lot of people prefer to try to
stretch IV. IV will certainly stretch. But there's a
limit.

For editing there's GIMP, Paint.net, free older
versions of PSP, reasonably priced current versions
of PSP, and probably other good software.

No one needs to try to shoehorn
graphic editing into a viewer. Nor is it necessary to

But I, for one, am glad they have (-:!

jump from viewer functionality to overpriced, limited
Adobe products. In general it's not even necessary to

I'd certainly agree with that.

spend money. Graphic operations, for the most part,
are relatively simple and rely on old technology, so
there's a lot of software around.

George P has presented a good example of what
IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't
care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to
damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and
resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no

Not necessarily: "lossless JPEG crop" is possible. (Including in
IrfanView; I don't know if just the basic IV or with the plugins, since
I always install both anyway.) It is slightly restricted in that it
limits the crop sizes (to a multiple of 16 pixels I think).

plans to touch them up or try to improve them. He
doesn't need good pictures. He just wants to quickly
crop 50 low-grade images. That's a good job for IV.
But if he wanted to do things like brighten, sharpen,
crop intelligently, add text, paste in sections, etc
then he'd be much better off with a full graphic editor
rather than trying to do all that in IV.

IV has a batch processing ability, which can do some of those things
(not sure which; I think I've only ever used it to rename). Obviously if
he wanted to do _different_ things to each image it'd be no use, the
same applying to any batch processing anything else can offer too.

To my mind FastStone is a remnant of an earlier
time. Like WinZip, it dates to a time 20 years ago
when the functionality it provides wasn't available
without paying a fairly high price. Windows could
display a BMP, GIF, or JPG back then. That was
about it.

Ignoring prejudices related to business models and general philosophy,
are you saying the actual software is older or newer than IrfanView? [Or
aren't you commenting on that, just having a rant (-:?]

FastStone is free for home use, but that's a bit
silly.

But very common among software.

They're trying to maintain an outdated business
model. Like buying MS Office Home for $150 rather
than using Libre Office. Even after paying $150, MS
would be claiming I can't legally write a business
letter, create a contract DOC, or design my own
business cards with their software. FastStone is
claiming I can only use their software to look at
pictures and can't do anything that could somehow
lkead to someone making money. Which means I
couldn't even look at pictures if I were doing it at
work. It's a ridiculous and even somewhat sleazy
licensing limitation.

Each to his own opinion! (I'm not disagreeing with any of the _facts_
you've stated: yes, in theory, those are all true.) Many years ago, I
did actually buy IrfanView because I liked it and was using it a lot,
and I also even bought it for my employer, so I could use it at work
with no worry (I never actually told them I'd done so, or claimed the
cost back). I think FastStone is significantly more expensive, though
(though I've no idea what IV costs these days so may be wrong there).

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

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| I find it does virtually all I need to do. I'd need a very good reason
| to invest (and sorry to sound like "Arlen Holder" here, but "invest"
| includes learning time) in anything else.

No argument here. Graphic editors are tremendously
complex and take a long time to get the hang of.

the better ones are very easy to use.

| George P has presented a good example of what
| IV is good for: He has 50 screenshots. He doesn't
| care what format they are. JPG? Then he's going to
| damage them, at least slightly, in the cropping and
| resaving. He doesn't care. He apparently has no
|
| Not necessarily: "lossless JPEG crop" is possible. (Including in
| IrfanView; I don't know if just the basic IV or with the plugins, since
| I always install both anyway.) It is slightly restricted in that it
| limits the crop sizes (to a multiple of 16 pixels I think).

Yes. If you want to split hairs. But in general
a JPG is lossy. It's already damaged in being a JPG.
So there won't be many cases where a lossless JPG
crop is relevant.

false.

It might look fine, but a lot of data has already
been dumped out, even at top quality. (0 or 100
quality number, depending on which tool you use.)
That's important when you're trying to do operations
like saturation or brightness. Even in the best JPGs
you'll see little rectangles (blended pixels) when
you zoom in.

false.

subtract the highest quality jpeg from the original and you'll see
there is *very* little difference.

| IV has a batch processing ability, which can do some of those things
| (not sure which; I think I've only ever used it to rename). Obviously if
| he wanted to do _different_ things to each image it'd be no use, the
| same applying to any batch processing anything else can offer too.

Yes. Anything he's doing in batch mode is
general, with no concern for quality. That's
fine. There's a place for that. Like I said,
that's what IV is great for.

also false. batch mode does not affect quality. it just automates what
would otherwise have been done one by one.


Big changes happened as PCs matured. More good
and free software destroyed the shareware market.
It's not a matter of philosophy. It's just a matter of
changes in the landscape. I was also affected by
that change. Shareware doesn't sell anymore. People
don't need to pay for the software they use.

they do if they want quality. although there are exceptions, most free
software is not particularly good.

maybe that's why you are having difficulties figuring out how to use
your graphic editor.


There's very little software I've paid for. BootIt.
Paint Shop Pro. Visual Studio 6. But even some
versions of VS can be had for free these days in
the form of "express" versions. Free and OSS
products provide most of what most people need.

the many billions of dollars spent for software say otherwise.

(Thus, the cloud. If companies could keep selling
new updates for the high prices they used to get
then there would be no cloud. Cloud is just a land
grab being marketed as futuristic technology.)

false.


Yes, indeed. If you go to the store and pay 10
times the going rate for a light bulb in order to be
"licensed" to use it in a lamp at work, that's no skin
off my back. And if you buy carrots at $10 or 5
pounds each for the company picnic.... that's your
choice.
But this licensing is a scam. I don't point it out
because I like to rant. I point it out so that poor
suckers like you or me don't end up being tricked
into paying $10 for a carrot, or $500 for an office
suite they don't need. Or $40 for an image viewer
they don't need.

too bad you don't understand what you claim to be pointing out. nobody
is paying 10 times the going rate for anything.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| It might look fine, but a lot of data has already
| been dumped out, even at top quality. (0 or 100
| quality number, depending on which tool you use.)
|
| [Does it have _no_ lossless compression setting?]

No. If you try a small sample you can see it. I just
tried it with a 30x90 button BMP that's a gradient
image. Saving it as JPG and then zooming 15x shows
an entirely different pattern of pixel colors.

jpeg was designed for real world photos, not pixel peeping 30x90 pixel
buttons with a gradient, and you probably didn't choose the highest
quality either.




An interesting aside to this: IBM just bought
Red Hat. I think it was something like $15B.

try again. it was $34b.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/tech/ibm-red-hat/index.html