From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:09:51 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] shrinking an Image? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a7d3d516-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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.