Re: RFS: aaphoto
Hi,
> Thank You for the help and the suggestions. I appreciate it.
>
> I can fix the things mentioned below.
>
> The orig.tar.gz differs in the hash only because i recompressed it
> before making the debian package from it. So it was my mistake that i
> didn't copy the upstream tgz file instead.
>
> What to do about the '*' character in the manual at the options? I use
> it for marking which option needs input file. Should i use a different
> character?
I simply missed the explanation of the meaning of "*". So please ignore
this. I've never seen in other man pages, though.
> I will remove the included generated files from the next version then
> (0.37), thanks for mentioning.
>
> I think i won't include REMARKS in the next version either, it's not
> necessary. I make it available for download in another tgz version
> anyway.
>
> Should i change NEWS, ChangeLog and README to 80 char width now in the
> fixed debian package?
This is not a technical requirement for the Debian package, just a
general comment about the software itself (because you are also the
upstream author). I would change it in the next upstream version.
> About the original compression quality. I was planning the make a
> comment on my site about this why i didn't implement it yet. Regarding
> the research i made on JPEG format, AFAIK the image that is
> recompressed with the same quality will have worse quality after the
> recompression,
Are you sure? I'm not an export on JPEG at all, but from what I know
about the general principle I would expect that certain transformation
do not incur a (or only a very small) quality loss when recompressed
with the same quality setting, e.g., brightness/contrast adjustments.
> so we can say that we have to use higher value for
> recompression than originally to get the same image quality, and this is
> not so trivial. Therefore i made a 95% default according to the balance
> between quality and size, and the user can change it on demand. Anyway
> if someone needs to have an image without quality loss, then there is
> the option to use PNG instead. If he sticks with JPEG, then i think the
> default value is a good choice.
The point why I mentioned the compression quality: I tested your
software on a few of my pictures. While the contrast etc. of a few bad
pictures has been clearly improved, the size of all files is now roughly
twice the old size (even if there is no visible difference). I assumed
that this is due to the fixed compression quality, but maybe there is a
different reason.
A special value "auto" or "same" for --quality would be quite handy to
maintain (almost) the same quality without increased file size and/or
manually adjusting the --quality value.
This discussion is a bit off-topic for d-mentors. So I suggest to
continue the discussion offline.
Joachim
Reply to: