|
|
Post by Sepiana on Jan 16, 2019 21:48:25 GMT
The current challenge for us is now to dispell wrong ideas as you are doing. That is exactly why I pointed out that Sepiana's claim that batch processing portrait and landscape images separately will give better results is not true. I posted why it is not true and asked her why she believes it is as anyone is entitled to. I believe I won't get an answer because her claim is clearly not true.
I am afraid this issue was taken out of context. Here is a recap.
Robert, this workaround may not suit your current project but, if it doesn't, you can always save it for a rainy day.
You can use Process Multiple Files to resize your photos, adjust the resolution, and change the file format (if needed). This may help with the issue you are having as to the way text is being displayed. Just keep in mind that . . .
- This batch-processing works best when you are trying to reduce file sizes. - You get better results if the photos in one batch have the same orientation. Ex.:landscape. Don't mix landscape- and portrait-oriented photos in the same batch.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Jan 16, 2019 22:25:32 GMT
The current challenge for us is now to dispell wrong ideas as you are doing. That is exactly why I pointed out that Sepiana's claim that batch processing portrait and landscape images separately will give better results is not true. I posted why it is not true and asked her why she believes it is as anyone is entitled to. I believe I won't get an answer because her claim is clearly not true. Just try this one:
The dimensions in decimal inches are not accepted, but that's not the issue, you can use pixels instead or cm.
The conflict is in the 'constrain' proportions and the input of width and height. If you don't constrain, the image is distorted. If you constrain, you won't get the respective dimensions. So, the process multiple file process can't solve the original question, which is not totally defined and can be understood in two ways. - is it for max pixels dimensions for displaying (requires the correct orientation and a cropping in width).
- or for printing, where orientation can be ignored and the vertical pictures can be rotated to fill to fit in the maximal printing dimensions?
For viewing you can define height, for instance for a slideshow. The result will be that you'll have to downscale and lose resolution. Or you choose width, which will upscale (more data to store and transfer) and you let the displaying software adjust height. The process multiple file can do either way with both landscape and portrait files, it's up to you to choose W or H.
If I print a batch of 10 x 15 cm files in both orientations, it's critical that I get the most of my resolution, which means rotating the vertical ones. That's automatic when I print on my home printer with the organizer, but I am not sure that will be the case with external services. That may explain the old advice to work separately with portrait and landscape.
For more flexibility in batch printing, I also use FastStone resizer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Jan 16, 2019 23:28:46 GMT
As I posted earlier, the same resizing algorithms are used whether the image is portrait or landscape, so the quality will be the same for both whether in the same batch or separate. For anyone to say otherwise without saying how they measured the difference in quality leaves them wide open to be challenged and justifiably not believed. As I mentioned earlier, no-one is under any obligation to believe claims unsupported by evidence showing them to be true. Simply quoting someone else making the same unsupported claim is meaningless to me and a waste of time as it proves nothing at all. I rest my case your honour until someone posts something that proves anything I posted is not accurate  |
|
