batch for transforming images

Knapp magick.crow at
Fri Sep 19 16:16:31 BST 2008

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Willy K. Hamra <w.hamra1987 at> wrote:
> Knapp wrote:
>>>>> I like this ones:
>>>>> mogrify -resize 800x600 *.jpg
>>>>> or
>>>>> mogrify -resize 800 *.jpg
>>>>> or
>>>>> mogrify -resize 50% *.jpg
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jorge
>>>> He said all the images in a dir.  To mogrify hundreds of images might take a
>>>> while.  The script does them all at once.
>>>> bruce
>>> But with *.jpg you can change all the images in the dir
>>> ---
>>> Jorge
>> .jpg is lossy and thus every time you open and then save it or change
>> it you lose detail. PNG is way better because you don't loose
>> anything.
> i agree, but this is in the case you're doing many editings on the pic,
> but if the pic is going to it's final edit, jpg is better for it's
> compression. i tend to send a lot of photos over the net, and with
> upload speeds blazing fast (60 bps :P), it is a hell to try sending
> 20~30 PNG images. but when editing, PNG is the format of choice
> --
> Willy K. Hamra
> Manager of Hamra Information Systems
> Co. Manager of Zeina Computer & Billy Net

I agree with what you are saying but would tell anyone that is doing
this sort of work to be sure to understand that jpg gets better
compression not by compressing better but by dropping information into
the trash. Wikipedia has good info IF you read all 4 pages in the set.
JPG, PNG, TIFF and GIFF. The 4 pages seem to have some misleading info
when talking about other formats that the one the pages is on.

Douglas E Knapp

More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list