From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:44:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <170220182344245425%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <p6alqc$sk5$> <170220182050480435%nospam@nospam.invalid> <n0lmy7amjq04$> <p6at15$1l2$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="f27371b47fa0810c2f5bf1df9177a55e";
logging-data="15632"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dYOM52uYUbTXpBnRrgVTH"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k0viaFrw4Wx9D0MGqqKGg2hheZM=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <p6at15$1l2$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better 
> image
> | format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful.
>    It depends on the situation. A BMP *is* the image.

nope. a bmp is a representation of an image.

> You can compress it as a TIF if you don't want to use
> the space, but the format is not wasteful. It's just
> not compressed.

in other words, wasteful.

> It's what all other formats decompress
> to.


> It's what gets displayed onscreen. 

also false.

> It's the actual
> image data of a raster image. Surely you knew that?

given that it too is false, why would he?

>    I suppose you could save as PNG, but neither TIF
> nor PNG is remarkable compression. JPG only exists
> because it has very good compression, it's royalty
> free, and it's cross-platform. The quality is poor, but
> it doesn't matter so much for web graphics and
> photos of trivia sent between iPhones.  It's not
> a format for storing photos.


a high quality jpeg is visually indistinguishable from an uncompressed
original (easy to prove).

a low quality jpeg looks like crap, but that's an intentional choice
made by the user, not a flaw in the format, and something that is
rarely, if ever done. 

jpeg works quite well for storing photos if raw is not an option. 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.

> Similarly with GIF: It's
> handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform,
> but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit
> color.

that part is (mostly) true. 8 bit colour is not an issue if the gif is
a graphic and not necessarily an issue for photos. 

gifs are also useful for animations or short video clips. you can find
many of those at <>.