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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In message , JJ
writes: [] 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. Just for interest: sometime in the last few years, I emailed an image (down, boy, whoever it was who ranted against email attachments - this would have been well under 100 KB!) to someone who was unable to view it; I think it was in .pcx format (which was what the old scanner I'd used produced). So formats _do_ fall out of fashion. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while. - Liner notes, "Songs & More Songs By Tom Lehrer", Rhino Records, 1997. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , Mayayana
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. then there's no radiation. be sure it's using dvi/hdmi/displayport for the best quality. if it's vga, it will not be as sharp. Like TVs, they have threaded holes on the back to accomodate mounting hardware. some do, but not all. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , JJ
wrote: nope. a bmp is a representation of an image. Nope. BMP is a container of an image. i.e. a representation. 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. it's false regardless of operating system. 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. some formats are proprietary and there is no guarantee that they will be readable in the future. when the apps that can read/write them cease to work, you're ****ed. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , JJ
wrote: This is designed to be simple, quick cropping and resizing, while retaining the best possible image quality when desired. (Crop a JPG and you'll lose some quality, not when it's a lossless or non-destructive crop. That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive. no it isn't. You misunderstood. nope. If you crop an image to keep only the left side, the right ride of the image will be gone. Meaning that the crop function itself removes data. Whether there's an undo or redo functionality or not, that an entire different function. undo/redo can only be done *if* the crop is non-destructive. with a destructive crop, there is no undo. those pixels are *gone*. forever. bmp is obsolete. In a Mac OS, BMP isn't even the native image container. So, I would be obvious that most, if not all of Mac softwares don't use BMP. macs can read bmp, but given that the format is obsolete, it's exceptionally rare that anyone would need to do that, on any platform (even windows). In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e. used by the graphic kernel. bmp is a file format. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: bmp is obsolete. In a Mac OS, BMP isn't even the native image container. So, I would be obvious that most, if not all of Mac softwares don't use BMP. In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e. used by the graphic kernel. The information in the graphics RAM while a picture is on screen - whatever the OS - is going to be raw image data, regardless of how it was saved to or loaded from disc. correct. (What _is_ the "native" format for Macs then?) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: 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. Just for interest: sometime in the last few years, I emailed an image (down, boy, whoever it was who ranted against email attachments - this would have been well under 100 KB!) to someone who was unable to view it; I think it was in .pcx format (which was what the old scanner I'd used produced). So formats _do_ fall out of fashion. mail it to someone with a mac. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
"JJ" wrote
| 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. He doesn't grasp the concept. It's like saying we won't have words in the future, but that English will always exist. The truth is the other way around, but he doesn't grasp file formats. I was reading an article yesterday postulating that programming has become a very steep learning curve simply because the usage of a computer is so abstracted. Someone can be a successful photographer working with digital images yet with no need to understand what a file is, how the image is stored, or even where their images are. Fire up Adobe rental- ware, log into your online storage, sync your phone, edit images from yesterday's wedding, then send them to friends.... There's no need to have even the barest concept of how that all happened or "where" the photos are, much less what they are. And there are lots of valorizing terms to make it sound technical: "I'm managing assets in my workflow" sounds far more official than, "****, where'd I put that file?" |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
JJ wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:35:36 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , JJ wrote: This is designed to be simple, quick cropping and resizing, while retaining the best possible image quality when desired. (Crop a JPG and you'll lose some quality, not when it's a lossless or non-destructive crop. That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive. no it isn't. You misunderstood. If you crop an image to keep only the left side, the right ride of the image will be gone. Meaning that the crop function itself removes data. Whether there's an undo or redo functionality or not, that an entire different function. Your editing software is the important factor. There are several photo editing application which can perform non-destructive crops which are reversible, among them Photoshop CC, Lightroom Classic CC, On1 Photo RAW 2018, Luminar 2018, AlienSkin Exposure X3, & Affinity Photo. bmp is obsolete. In a Mac OS, BMP isn't even the native image container. So, I would be obvious that most, if not all of Mac softwares don't use BMP. As a Mac user BMP is far removed from my thoughts, and workflow. I shoot RAW+JPEG, and use a RAW workflow, and usually the only time I use JPEG is when I produce one for online sharing. Though recently I have been using SOOC JPEG from my Fujifilm cameras, and their great film simulations. In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e. used by the graphic kernel. Not being a Windows user, I donāt understand this idea of holding on to the BMP format when there are much better ways to go. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | 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. He doesn't grasp the concept. he does. *you* don't. It's like saying we won't have words in the future, but that English will always exist. The truth is the other way around, but he doesn't grasp file formats. no, it's not like that at all. if the format is not public, then there's no guarantee that it will be readable. I was reading an article yesterday postulating that programming has become a very steep learning curve simply because the usage of a computer is so abstracted. Someone can be a successful photographer working with digital images yet with no need to understand what a file is, how the image is stored, or even where their images are. Fire up Adobe rental- ware, log into your online storage, sync your phone, edit images from yesterday's wedding, then send them to friends.... There's no need to have even the barest concept of how that all happened or "where" the photos are, much less what they are. exactly how it should be. people don't need know how to fix cars when they want to drive to the store, so why should they know about the inner workings of a computer just to take and edit photos? And there are lots of valorizing terms to make it sound technical: "I'm managing assets in my workflow" sounds far more official than, "****, where'd I put that file?" it's also far more powerful. you are stuck in the past. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , Savageduck
wrote: In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e. used by the graphic kernel. Not being a Windows user, I don¹t understand this idea of holding on to the BMP format when there are much better ways to go. don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
nospam wrote:
In article , Savageduck wrote: In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e. used by the graphic kernel. Not being a Windows user, I donĀ¹t understand this idea of holding on to the BMP format when there are much better ways to go. don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few. I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows user in this NG. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
"JJ" wrote
| 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. | Not actually. It requires a scan line divisble by 4. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. But that's just for building the file. As a DIB it's just 3 bytes per pixel. If you create a 10x10 white BMP and save to disk you can see it clearly. Each horizontal scan line is 30 bytes. 10 pixels at 3 bytes each. If you look at it in a hex editor you'll see 2 null bytes after each 30 FF bytes, rounding up each line to 32 bytes. The width and height are in the header, so Windows will unpack it accordingly. And the loaded DIB will be just 300 bytes of value 255. Thus: 10x10 BMP @ 374 bytes. 54 byte header. 300 bytes for 100 pixels of data. 20 bytes scan line padding. If the image is something like 800x600 the padding, if any, will be negligible. In fact, with 800 x 600 it's zero: 800 pixels wide x 3 bytes per pixel = 2400 bytes per scan line, which divides evenly by 4. The pixel value can be handled as a DWORD/long integer but it's only actually 3 bytes of data. One byte for each RGB. (Notice the color picker ion any graphic editor. Typically it's a 6 character hex code. 3 bytes. 24-bit. A PNG has to store 4 bytes for the alpha channel AKA transparency percentage value of the pixel. But for BMP it's just 3 pixels. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
"JJ" wrote
| | - 32bpp: each pixel is stored in a DWORD storage. i.e. 1 pixel per 4 bytes. | I think that's the point of confusion. Monitors and graphics drivers talk about 32-bit display and that term is common, but there's actually no such thing. It's 24-bit color. The other byte is for transparency data, so that Microsoft could show their semi-transparent techno- kitsch windows on Win7 and make people think they were getting something new. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Savageduck wrote:
nospam wrote: In article , Savageduck wrote: In Windows however, not so. BMP is the native image format in that OS. i.e. used by the graphic kernel. Not being a Windows user, I donĀ¹t understand this idea of holding on to the BMP format when there are much better ways to go. don't lump all windows users based on the actions of a few. I know. As far as I know we only have a single BMP obsessed Windows user in this NG. So you've never run into a situation before, where a tool doesn't support the entire spectrum of file formats ? Well, OK then. Let's take (WinXP) Windows Movie Maker as a poster boy for this. It only supported Microsoft formats and nothing else. Requiring the user to use a second tool to make an actual usable output. To me "every capability is a possibility" when cobbling together a solution out of a pile of software I've got. I don't reject something just because its old. If a wonderful tool only had BMP input, I'd still be using it. Some tools are demonstrators (written by academics), and they don't necessarily support every format you might like. There are people out there, writing perfectly fine software, who don't even know how to craft useful command line parameters (for their so-called command line programs). It takes all kinds to make a world. Since the functions the software performs are actually useful and unique, we just put up with this. Paul |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , Paul
wrote: Let's take (WinXP) Windows Movie Maker as a poster boy for this. It only supported Microsoft formats and nothing else. Requiring the user to use a second tool to make an actual usable output. nothing like proprietary microsoft formats to lock you into the platform. To me "every capability is a possibility" when cobbling together a solution out of a pile of software I've got. I don't reject something just because its old. bmp is not being rejected because it's old. it's being rejected because it's obsolete, as is windows xp. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|