From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}>
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Full headers:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:27 -0600
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY=
Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:07:27 -0600
Lines: 84
X-Trace: sv3-UnWiCvYL6PiqANzwPto0z8oVzcyz+MWiUEiJekxodqaqCy41Wjwy/T1WACfEWB2G/ZLW6yZWzn1YgNx!DVgEPGJ71OoTpimwS3o+Lm0K0q5EzWzVT+OYIvry9DgIO7OSgNCsWtDnsR36EnznMc29cdcYLk9B!zQ==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4238
Print Article
Forward Article
Paul<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article<>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> 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.
>> 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 ?
Fortunately for me, no.

For Mac users we have a very neat piece of software, “Graphic Converter”
which pretty much does that job. It can dig up some pretty obscure file

Otherwise Adobe CC, and some third party plug-ins cover my photo editing

> Well, OK then.
> Let's take (WinXP) Windows Movie Maker as a poster boy for this.

Let’s not. I last used Win XP 11-12 years ago, and I haven’t used any
variety of Windows for 10+ years. I have not had the need to.

> It only supported Microsoft formats and nothing else.
> Requiring the user to use a second tool to make
> an actual usable output.
That sounds like a royal PIA to me.

> To me "every capability is a possibility" when
> cobbling together a solution out of a pile of
> software I've got.

....and what software do you have?

 I don't reject something just
> because its old. If a wonderful tool only had BMP
> input, I'd still be using it. 

What wonderful tool are you thinking of, and why if all it could cope with
was BMP, why would it be considered wonderful?

Some tools are
> demonstrators (written by academics), and they
> don't necessarily support every format you might like.
If they don’t necessarily support every format I might like, why should I
consider using them?

These days I use NEF, RAF, TIFF, and even JPEG.

> 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. 

Yup! I am just another one who falls under the category of “all kinds”.

Since the functions
> the software performs are actually useful and unique,
> we just put up with this.
>    Paul