The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hello.
I have got tons of pictures, bitmaps, on my hard drive, roughly 200, that I need to change to jpgs. Is there any way to do them all at once instead of my usual, go to Paint, save as jpeg! Like maybe select them all, then change them somehow?
Bitmaps take up so much space, each picture is at least a MB! So.. any help would be much appreciated as it will save lots of time!
Thank you!
I have got tons of pictures, bitmaps, on my hard drive, roughly 200, that I need to change to jpgs. Is there any way to do them all at once instead of my usual, go to Paint, save as jpeg! Like maybe select them all, then change them somehow?
Bitmaps take up so much space, each picture is at least a MB! So.. any help would be much appreciated as it will save lots of time!
Thank you!
Page:
Something called IkonPackager.
Turbonutter wrote:
> http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.png
> http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.jpg
>
> Both the same size.
>
> I'm not saying PNG isn't better, because it is, just that you really
> don't get JPEG artefacts.
Wow those icons are pretty flash, where are they from?
> http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.png
> http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.jpg
>
> Both the same size.
>
> I'm not saying PNG isn't better, because it is, just that you really
> don't get JPEG artefacts.
Wow those icons are pretty flash, where are they from?
http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.png
http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.jpg
Both the same size.
I'm not saying PNG isn't better, because it is, just that you really don't get JPEG artefacts.
http://www.sine-wave.net/images/desktop.jpg
Both the same size.
I'm not saying PNG isn't better, because it is, just that you really don't get JPEG artefacts.
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/9816/zig.htm
As you can see in this screenprint, a JPEG over twice the size of the equivalent PNG still produces monstrous artifacts.
As you can see in this screenprint, a JPEG over twice the size of the equivalent PNG still produces monstrous artifacts.
Yes, but the point is, you really don't get JPEG artefacts on screenshots, even if you match the PNG filesize.
Turbonutter wrote:
> What if you have a photographic background? What's the cut off point
> between it being computer graphics and photographic?
There is no exact cut-off point, it's up to you to make a judgement. JPEG compression is designed to work with photos and natural world scenes, PNG and GIF compression are lossless (albeit GIF being restricted to 8 bit colour) but only compress well if there are large blocks of a single colour - such as most screenprints. It's up to the compressor to make the call on which one to use.
> What if you have a photographic background? What's the cut off point
> between it being computer graphics and photographic?
There is no exact cut-off point, it's up to you to make a judgement. JPEG compression is designed to work with photos and natural world scenes, PNG and GIF compression are lossless (albeit GIF being restricted to 8 bit colour) but only compress well if there are large blocks of a single colour - such as most screenprints. It's up to the compressor to make the call on which one to use.
Very_Metal wrote:
> do a Google search.
> there are LOADS of free batch converters that will do this job for
> you.
Thanks for that. I got the program already though, gamezfreak gave a link down below.. ;)
> do a Google search.
> there are LOADS of free batch converters that will do this job for
> you.
Thanks for that. I got the program already though, gamezfreak gave a link down below.. ;)
What if you have a photographic background? What's the cut off point between it being computer graphics and photographic?
Turbonutter wrote:
> Er if you compress at JPEG 80 like any sane person you really don't
> see it.
No sane person compresses screenprints/lineart into jpeg, it's not what it was designed for. If you use a sufficiently high quality jpeg then visual artifacts will be reduced to a minimum, but this is what gif and png were designed for - you will lossless compression with a png, and a much smaller filesize than any near-lossless jpeg.
> Er if you compress at JPEG 80 like any sane person you really don't
> see it.
No sane person compresses screenprints/lineart into jpeg, it's not what it was designed for. If you use a sufficiently high quality jpeg then visual artifacts will be reduced to a minimum, but this is what gif and png were designed for - you will lossless compression with a png, and a much smaller filesize than any near-lossless jpeg.
Miserableman wrote:
> taka-Q wrote:
> As long as you keep the JPG's quality up you can get the same image
> up to 10x smaller without lossing quality.
>
> Only on photographic material. Images with clean lines (e.g.
> screenshots) show horrible artifacts with jpeg compression. In that
> case, you would compress to png.
Er if you compress at JPEG 80 like any sane person you really don't see it.
> taka-Q wrote:
> As long as you keep the JPG's quality up you can get the same image
> up to 10x smaller without lossing quality.
>
> Only on photographic material. Images with clean lines (e.g.
> screenshots) show horrible artifacts with jpeg compression. In that
> case, you would compress to png.
Er if you compress at JPEG 80 like any sane person you really don't see it.
Page: