Bug 139507 - integrate jpegoptim software during copy transfer
Summary: integrate jpegoptim software during copy transfer
Status: RESOLVED INTENTIONAL
Alias: None
Product: digikam
Classification: Applications
Component: Import-PostProcessing (show other bugs)
Version: 0.8.2
Platform: unspecified Linux
: NOR wishlist
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Digikam Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-01-02 15:10 UTC by GML
Modified: 2022-01-26 11:42 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In: 7.6.0
Sentry Crash Report:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description GML 2007-01-02 15:10:34 UTC
Version:           0.8.2 (using KDE 3.5.5, Kubuntu (edgy) 4:3.5.5-0ubuntu3)
Compiler:          Target: i486-linux-gnu
OS:                Linux (i686) release 2.6.17-10-generic

jpegoptim http://linux.maruhn.com/sec/jpegoptim.html is a software to optimize  jpeg files size without lost informations.

It's maybe a good idea to integrate this during copy transfert from camera.

What do you think about this ?

Thanks for your response.
Comment 1 caulier.gilles 2007-08-22 09:26:45 UTC
To everybody,

Do you want really this option in camera interface like we do with autorotate feature ? 

Gilles
Comment 2 GML 2007-08-22 09:40:08 UTC
Yes, I think.
Comment 3 Mikolaj Machowski 2007-08-22 17:42:08 UTC
Tested it on JPEGs from my camera. Optimization is fast but brings only
minor gains. Most of size reduction was 3-4% percent with whole range
0-9%.
Comment 4 Michael Skiba 2007-08-29 17:11:47 UTC
I don't need this option especially so I don't vote for it, but an overall range of 0-9% size reduction without lose of quality(?!), would nice, or? (I could imagen a checkbox option on camera import "[] Optimize JPEG pictures"
Comment 5 Mikolaj Machowski 2007-08-29 22:42:39 UTC
Optimization of 9% was only in real minority of images, about 10% of
them. Big majority of size reductions was in 3-4% range.
Comment 6 caulier.gilles 2007-08-30 10:02:47 UTC
Arnd,

Sound like there is no advantage to implement it...

Gilles
Comment 7 Arnd Baecker 2007-08-30 10:58:50 UTC
Well, it's an on average an advantage of 4% and a valid wish.
Personally I don't care about 4% as it does not really make a difference.

I would anyway suggest to copy the images plainly from the camera to one hard disk
and then transfer them to a separate disk on which digikam operates
Then, before starting digikam one could just run jpegoptim.

Should this be marked as WONTFIX, or should we wait to see if
this gets some votes over time?
Comment 8 caulier.gilles 2007-08-30 11:02:43 UTC
Arnd,

Agree to WONTFIX. There are more tiedous part to implement instead. Sorry GML...

Marcel, your viewpoint ?

Gilles
Comment 9 Mikolaj Machowski 2007-08-30 14:37:03 UTC
On my part I am for WONTFIX. Just wanted to point this is another
perfect case for service menus...
Comment 10 GML 2007-08-30 19:08:37 UTC
Okay, I'm the reporter of this bug, the service menu is enough for me.
Comment 11 Mikolaj Machowski 2007-08-31 00:44:19 UTC
Joke is: there is no support for service menus at the moment :(
But this is another question. By popular vote I am closing it as WONTFIX...