Re: PROPOSAL: GNOME-Backgrounds for GNOME 2.10

[Thomas Wood <thos gnome org>]

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 19:13 +0100, Maciej Katafiasz wrote:
> Dnia 06-11-2004, sob o godzinie 12:02 +0000, Thomas Wood napisał:
> > > Now, on technical side, I must say not all of the images are of high
> > > enough quality, most of ones stored in JPEG have visible compression
> > > artifacts that IMHO should never occur in good artwork. If possible,
> > > regenerating that artwork to PNG, or at least JPEG with good quality
> > > settings should be performed, if not, then I'd say they should be
> > > removed from module. There are enough good quality backgrounds even
> > > after removing those.
> > 
> > They where actually regenerated as JPEG from PNG files, since JPEG
> > compression in terms of file size is superior than PNG. For example, the
> > Hills background is almost 3MB as a PNG file, even with the highest
> > compression options. As a JPEG it is 1.1MB with the highest quality
> > settings. I couldn't discern any obvious JPEG artifacts on the current
> > images, but if there are any in particular you think should be at higher
> > quality, let me know and I'll re-convert them.
> 
> GNOME-Aqua.jpg and GNOME-Wierdcolours.jpg, both display JPEG noise in
> the same place -- around the edges of Foot and toes. This is especially
> visible in latter one (which, btw, is misspelt, should be "Weirdcolours"
> I presume :)
> 

Ah I see the artifacts now (I wasn't viewing them at full size!). I have
updated GNOME-Aqua with a higher quality JPEG, and have corrected the
misspelling of GNOME-Weirdcolours. I don't have a higher quality version
of Weirdcolours, so I will try to get in touch with the author for one.

I have also just (re-)added GNOME-Black to the branded backgrounds.

-Thomas