I created some presentation with a lot of small images.
The problem is - that those images were originally whole screenshots (1920x1080 px), which I used Impress' image cropping tool to take only small relevant parts of the screenshot.
If you ask why is it a problem -> the answer is that instead of containing ~30 very little image crops, my presentation contains ~30 1920x1080 sized images, and just shows them according to the current crop settings.
It causes the saving process to take ~10 seconds, the output file is very large and everything works slowly because of the complex rendering process.
Is there any way to discard the cropped parts of the images?
The cropping tool is not good for making such large changes. From https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Writer_Guide/Cropping_resizing_rotating (and this is true in Impress as well):
If you crop an image in Writer, the picture itself is not changed. If
you export the document to HTML, the original image is exported, not
the cropped image.
Instead, use separate image software to do the cropping before putting the images into Impress. I typically use IrfanView.
For a discussion see https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3665.
Related
I am searching for a tool on web but didnt got any success their at all. I want to have something like upload and preview the image as background as repeated one or any other alternative...
I have this sample:
How can I preview and cut the image as a perfect background image as repeated one. Is it possible in Photoshop or in some similiar products?
The trick i have recovered is crop a part of the image in a big canvas of Photoshop and then making the deuplicate copies of the layers...
If the image seems like irregular it means the cropped image is wrong so you have to change with a other or larger part of the image...
If it is regular and doesn't cut at the side onto the edge, it means image is perfect making background repeated...
Thanks...
I am trying to create a background image on a webpage, which is similar to the 404 page used on tumbler...
http://testing404image.tumblr.com/
Here we can see a PNG which is 1623*1064 pixels, yet appears reasonably smooth gradient wise.
The direct link for the image is
http://testing404image.tumblr.com/images/status_bg.png?2
When I try to create a similar PNG (different colors, but same size) in Photoshop CS4 for Mac, the resulting file ends up at > 400k, whereas tumblers is 90k
Ive tried playing with all Photoshop options, including reducing number of colors to 55, but I cannot get the image below ~240k.
Ive also tried various optimising tools such as ImageOptim (http://imageoptim.com/) but to no avail.
Are there any properties of this PNG which result in a such a low file size?
I tried using JPG, thinking its better suited to gradient images, but even a 100% quality JPG resulted in noticeable aliasing, which an identical content/size PNG didnt have.
Thanks for any advice
Hi there changed the colours with
Image > Adjustments > Hue/Saturation - In Photoshop CS4
and this is the result:
as you can see it's almost the same size (75k).
Try playing around under the
Image > Adjustments
to get the color you are looking for and save as png with NONE for interlace.
Photoshop is not very good with PNG: I simply opened and saved it with the humble xnView (maximum compression), and got 74K. You can also convert it to paletted-image, and do some extra little tuning - PNGoptim gives me a final size of 64.548. I would't expect anything much better than that, the image is just too big.
BTW, be aware that using a gradient that is so big and so smooth that it a digital image (with 8 bits per pixel) cannot represent it without some banding. That image is really oversampled (you could resample it at 25% or less and display it scaled, and the result would be basically the same)
The actual reason is the source image your looking to have a lower gradient quality than the one you are making.
Just uncheck the Dither option (from the top toolbar in Photoshop) when filling the gradient color. the quality and smoothness of the gradient is decreased and therefore you get a very smaller file sized PNG output.
i am converting the image into thumbnail format and sending it to server and i want to convert it back to original size while receiving can any one please tell me how to resize the image to original without loosing quality.....
i tried directly to displaying the image in image view but the quality of the image is missing ...
can any one please help me how to maintain the quality of the image .......
Downscaling is irreversible, some information lost forever.
What you're asking isn't possible. You can't enlarge an image while maintaining the same quality. If you think about an image as a mapped array of pixels (literally, a "bit-map"), this makes sense. The image is saved with a fixed amount of data, and that's all you have to work with when you resize it. Any examples to the contrary (like TV shows) are purely fictional.
Investigate using vector graphics instead, which can be resized at will without a loss of quality.
you simply can not convert an image from thumbnail to original size and retain the quality it had in its original size.
if you want to display the image full-size, you have to send the full-size image.
You could think about using a Vector image? They do not lose quality when resized. But I have no clue whether you can use them for thumbnails in iOS.
See this wiki page for more info about Vector graphics.
I want to remove watermark from a picture within my iPhone / iPad application. Is there any kind of image processing I can perform within this application to do this?
Can't be done, sorry.
The watermarked image were originally two images (the base and the watermark), which were merged together to form the result. The problem here is that the most common image formats (such as JPG, PNG, or GIF) have no concept of layers - so that the base would be one layer, and the watermark another: the result is just one layer, onto which both were redrawn. This is somewhat similar to a physical painting: if you paint one image on a paper using watercolors, and then another over the same spot, their colors will mix and you won't be able to tell which parts belong to one or the other, as they'd become a single image.
This is similar with the computer image formats: there is only one "layer", which for every pixel encodes exactly one color that is there - only the current color exists, and the image doesn't keep track what was on that pixel before.
Now, the information is irreversibly lost from the result - in other words, it is not possible to recover the base knowing just the result (or the result and watermark) - BTW, that's exactly the point of watermarking.
I have borrowed the image sprites of StackOverflow for a demonstration; the actual images used are not unique, the technique would work just as well with any images. This was the watermark I used:
And this is the result image, after merging with the base:
Now, even though we have the exact watermark image used, there's no way to recover what was underneath that star in the original image. Through image processing operations, we could almost remove the star from the result, but there's not enough data to tell us what used to be underneath: - that information got erased in the merge at the beginning.
We could guess what used to be there, but then we're not doing recovery any more, we're interpreting the image and guessing what possibly could have been there - and that's pretty hard, even for a human; computers are really bad at that. This is the original image, before I watermarked it - I bet you were expecting something slightly different, no?
The watermark is almost certainly part of the image. (The only case in which it wouldn't be is something like PDF or SVG, where it could be a separate vector element.)
Watermarks are typically present on images for purposes of managing intellectual property; if one has licensed an image for a particular use, typically one will receive access to a version of the image without a watermark. Thus wanting to "remove watermarks" is also likely to be treated as highly suspicious.
Watermarks are part of the image, there isn't going to be a magic way to remove them and recover the missing pixels in any tool.
Take a look at the source! Most or the current watermarking is done in php as an automated script. In most cases you will see the base picture in source
I have an application that let's users view images. The user decides what images to use, so the size can range from 10x10 to 10000000x10000000 (I am exeggerating). All is well up to a certain size, when the image is bigger than the iPhone's memory. Quite understandably.
But how do I fix it? Is there a way to load only a portion of the image (I'm using an CATiledLayer, so I could load/release tile by tile).
Thanks in advance!
Unless you have an uncompressed image format it would be very hard to load the image in patches, you will have to provide the patches that the user would load, determine what portion of the image to show, and load the correct patches. There is an example for this "ScrollViewSuite" that demonstrate that technique. But this technique does require a preprocessing step.