From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200608271734.k7RHYVl22017@demeter.cs.utwente.nl> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] shrinking an Image? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:09:51 -0500." References: From: Axel Belinfante MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <22013.1156700070.1@demeter.cs.utwente.nl.cs.utwente.nl> Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:34:30 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: a876c3f2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Now that you mention this, for one plan 9 image that I converted using togif and tojpg I had better results after first converting it using 'iconv -c m8'. Was I 'unlucky' in needing this additional step, or is that the usual procedure? Axel. > in light of russ' comment, could it be that you are not using the -t > option for jpg? the default for jpg/png/etc is to downsample to 8 bits. > page actually uses "-t9" as it's options. i've been burned by this > many times. perhaps jpg should default to depth 24 when being > used as a filter. > > - erik > > On Sun Aug 27 02:55:23 CDT 2006, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > > would resample(1) do? > > > > I find that resample(1) is not visually as faithful as (even?) > > page(1)'s built-in resizer. I have not explored the possible causes, > > however. For JPEG and 2, 4, 8 times resizing (shrinking) I find the > > cjpeg | djpeg combination to be preferable.