On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 10:03 -0300, Jon Lapham wrote:

Hello list,

Is it possible to rescale multiple images (ie: hundreds) without having to open each one individually in the Gimp? I guess this would be a sort of batch processing.

Hi,
you can use convert from ImageMagick. cd /dir/with_images/
for image in *; do convert -scale 100x100 $image $image; done

check the man page for more info :)

nuno

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 10:28 -0300, Jon Lapham wrote:

nuno alexandre wrote:

you can use convert from ImageMagick. [snip shell script]

As I mentioned, I have a perl script (incidently using the ImageMagick module) which does exactly what your shell script does.

I was just curious if/how the Gimp could do it, as I use the Gimp for all my image processing except for this one step.

From what I've found on the net, related to theGimp capabilities to do

batch jobs,
I can say that you are better suited with ImageMagick and, like you said, your custom perl scripts.
I quote:

"Batch mode is slow. Its not really a practical replacement for tools like ImageMagick or NetPBM when it comes to large scale image conversions or similar. At least not without writing some very clever scripts.

The problem with this approach is that gimp/script-fu has no built in procedures to itterate though a list of images. So you cant easily tell gimp to load up *.jpg and run predator.scm on them, at least not without it taking a _long_ time.

So you could write a shell script to fire up gimp in batch mode for each image, but that starts a new gimp for every image. And gimp startup time is very very slow, especially if you plan to repeat ir a few hndred times."

src: http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch-7.html

nuno

Oh and BTW,
Can you _please_ reply only to the list and not to me personally, unless requested ?

Thank you.

nuno

On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 10:28:51AM -0300, Jon Lapham wrote:

nuno alexandre wrote:

you can use convert from ImageMagick. [snip shell script]

As I mentioned, I have a perl script (incidently using the ImageMagick module) which does exactly what your shell script does.

I was just curious if/how the Gimp could do it, as I use the Gimp for all my image processing except for this one step.

if the files are named logically, gap can do this.

if you have pygimp installed, you can easily modify my python gallery scripts to do this.
http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/web/python/gallery-simple.py

it scales images and writes html.

carol

nuno alexandre wrote:

Oh and BTW,
Can you _please_ reply only to the list and not to me personally, unless requested ?

Unfortunately (IMO) this list is set up so that a "Reply" goes NOT to the list but to the original sender of the message. I don't know why this list is set up in this way - replying to the list (for public discussion) is IMO the standard case, replying to someone personnally the exception - thus the standard setup should be that a reply goes to the list.

Jon Lapham wrote:

Is it possible to rescale multiple images (ie: hundreds) without having to open each one individually in the Gimp? I guess this would be a sort of batch processing.

David's Batch Processor (DBP) is a Gimp plugin to do exactly this. Look at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~hodsond/dbp.html

On Friday 24 June 2005 10:28, Jon Lapham wrote:

nuno alexandre wrote:

you can use convert from ImageMagick. [snip shell script]

As I mentioned, I have a perl script (incidently using the ImageMagick module) which does exactly what your shell script does.

I was just curious if/how the Gimp could do it, as I use the Gimp for all my image processing except for this one step.

Using Python Scripting it would be a matter of a few lines. The only drawback is that you'd have to change the script code for each processing job you need to do in the batch.

I will post here the Python script needed to rotate each image in a dir by 270 degrees and saving the result with an "R" appended to the filename.

I apologize for the portuguese names inside the code - I had used this script as an example ina local forum.

You have to replace the line "pdb.gimp_image_rotate (...)" for the actions you need applied to the image (check what is available in the GIMP Procedure Browser in the Xtns menu). Offcourse, you also need gimp-python installed (it is tehre if you have a "python-fu" menu entry. Else, it is usually available from Linux distros as a separate package, or you have to give ./configure an "--enable-python" option if you compile your own GIMP.

--

#! /usr/bin/python from gimpfu import *
import os
def rotacao_em_massa (diretorio):
for arquivo in os.listdir (diretorio): nome = os.path.join (diretorio, arquivo) imagem = pdb.gimp_file_load (nome, nome) pdb.gimp_image_rotate (imagem, ROTATE_270) tmp = arquivo.split(".")
novo_nome = os.path.join (diretorio, tmp[0] + "R" + tmp[1]) pdb.gimp_file_sabe (imagem, imagem.layers[0], novo_nome, novo_nome) register(
"rotacao_em_massa",
"Rotaciona as imagens em um diretório", "rotacao_em_massa (diretorio) -> None", "Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris", "(k) All rites reversed - reuse whatever you like- JS", "2005",
"/Python-Fu/Rotacionar em Massa", "*",
[(PF_FILE, "diretorio", "diretorio a transformar",""), ],
[],
rotacao_em_massa)
main()

Thanks, Jon

nuno alexandre wrote:

I quote:

[...]

src: http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch-7.html

I quote http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch.html, the contents page for that document:

"NOTE: This doc is ancient. It it wrong. You really want to look at Basic_Batch instead."

That's http://gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Batch/

Or you can use my plugin, which doesn't allow every image operation (just the common ones), but is entirely interactive, so you don't have to worry about writing a script.

I can say that you are better suited with ImageMagick and, like you said, your custom perl scripts.
I quote:

"Batch mode is slow. Its not really a practical replacement for tools like ImageMagick or NetPBM when it comes to large scale image conversions or similar. At least not without writing some very clever scripts.

The problem with this approach is that gimp/script-fu has no built in procedures to itterate though a list of images. So you cant easily tell gimp to load up *.jpg and run predator.scm on them, at least not without it taking a _long_ time.

So you could write a shell script to fire up gimp in batch mode for each image, but that starts a new gimp for every image. And gimp startup time is very very slow, especially if you plan to repeat ir a few hndred times."

src: http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch-7.html

that web page is from 1998

Jon Lapham wrote:

Okay, I've installed your plugin, wow, really nice work!

Thanks, glad you like it.

I have a few suggestions, do you want this discussion on the Gimp Users list, private email, or some other mailing list?

May as well take it to email, unless you think anyone else here would be interested.

Please do not reply to this message. Please let this discussion end as quickly as possible.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Andreas Waechter wrote:

Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:45:50 +0200 From: Andreas Waechter
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Multiple file scaling

nuno alexandre wrote:

Oh and BTW,
Can you _please_ reply only to the list and not to me personally, unless requested ?

Unfortunately (IMO) this list is set up so that a "Reply" goes NOT to the list but to the original sender of the message.

I don't know why this list is set up in this way - replying to the list (for public discussion) is IMO the standard case, replying to someone personnally the exception - thus the standard setup should be that a reply goes to the list.

This question come up on a regular basis. Here is a link to one of the more recent discusssion on: "Reply To considered Harmful"
http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg09567.html

There are different opinions on this issue. I strongly encourage people to read the previous dicussion we had on this recently and to read the many other discussions on the internet on this topic before replying to this message.

It is very easy to hit Reply to All and not bother to trim unneeded email addressess, I do this sometimes myself so I will not grumble when others do it but if asked I try and be more careful not to do it.

Good email programs include the option to "reply to list" and have a single button or keystroke to respond only to the list. I do not think anyone has ever disagreed with the idea that more Mail programs should include this feature.

Please try not to repond to this message unless you have read the previous discussion I liked to above and you are sure you comment is absolutely necessary.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

Hi,

Andreas Waechter writes:

Unfortunately (IMO) this list is set up so that a "Reply" goes NOT to the list but to the original sender of the message. I don't know why this list is set up in this way - replying to the list (for public discussion) is IMO the standard case, replying to someone personnally the exception - thus the standard setup should be that a reply goes to the list.

No, that's the broken setup, see
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for an explanation on why the list is setup the way it is.

People should really not complain about getting the same mail twice. It doesn't hurt at all and there are easy ways to filter duplicates if you really care about it.

Sven

On Friday 24 June 2005 10:45 am, Andreas Waechter wrote:

nuno alexandre wrote:

Oh and BTW,
Can you _please_ reply only to the list and not to me personally, unless requested ?

Unfortunately (IMO) this list is set up so that a "Reply" goes NOT to the list but to the original sender of the message. I don't know why this list is set up in this way - replying to the list (for public discussion) is IMO the standard case, replying to someone personnally the exception - thus the standard setup should be that a reply goes to the list.

===========

Andreas,
Not sure what is going on in your Thunderbird, maybe a setting or something, but "reply" should send it right back to the mail list. I know I can press "R" or "L" in KMail and it replies to the mail list for me. Usually Thunderbird is quite good at doing replies, so I'm thinking maybe a setting is off on your end.

Patrick

Andreas,
Not sure what is going on in your Thunderbird, maybe a setting or something, but "reply" should send it right back to the mail list.

No, Thunderbird should not "reply" to the list with the current settings of the list.

There is no "Reply-To" header, thus a "Reply" has to go to the address in the "From" header - which is the address of the original sender, not the list.

The List address is in the "To" field. Thus only a "Reply All" will go to the list as CC (and to the original sender as TO).

Don't blame my mail client for the set-up of the list.

15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with the list address, the only other list which has one is one I only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a "Reply" goes to the list.

Usually Thunderbird is quite good at doing replies, so I'm thinking maybe a setting is off on your end.

Definitely not.

Andreas

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with the list address, the only other list which has one is one I only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a "Reply" goes to the list.

15 out of 17 of your mail lists are for windows software. if you do not like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy your software and leave the free software developers alone.

and buy all means, leave it alone in the name of netiquette!

carol

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 23:35 -0700, Carol Spears wrote:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with the list address, the only other list which has one is one I only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a "Reply" goes to the list.

15 out of 17 of your mail lists are for windows software. if you do not like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy your software and leave the free software developers alone.

and buy all means, leave it alone in the name of netiquette!

carol

heh :)
All sourceforge, LKML and so many other lists act this same way. (reply goes to the list )
What does that have to do with free v non-free software ?

nuno

please continue to steal

[...]

leave it alone in the name of netiquette!

Ah, I understand:

Netiquette means that you are allowed to imply that someone is a thief but that you are not allowed to talk about mail list behaviour.

Thanks for making that clear to me.

Andreas Waechter wrote:

Andreas,
Not sure what is going on in your Thunderbird, maybe a setting or something, but "reply" should send it right back to the mail list.

No, Thunderbird should not "reply" to the list with the current settings of the list.

There is no "Reply-To" header, thus a "Reply" has to go to the address in the "From" header - which is the address of the original sender, not the list.

There is

List-Post:

The lack of list reply capabilities is a long known bug of Thunderbird. Recently, someone wrote an extension that recognizes these headers at least, but unfortunately it doesn't change the behaviour of the reply button.

The List address is in the "To" field. Thus only a "Reply All" will go to the list as CC (and to the original sender as TO).

Don't blame my mail client for the set-up of the list.

15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with the list address, the only other list which has one is one I only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a "Reply" goes to the list.

I'd like to have this as well, mainly because I want to discourage private replies to mailing list messages at all (the link Alan posted some time ago explains why).

Usually Thunderbird is quite good at doing replies, so I'm thinking maybe a setting is off on your end.

Definitely not.

Yes, Thunderbird is unfortunately very bad at doing list replies. It's even beaten by rather old MUAs on Windows, like Pegasus Mail.

HTH, Michael

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:15:51AM +0200, nuno alexandre wrote:

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 23:35 -0700, Carol Spears wrote:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with the list address, the only other list which has one is one I only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a "Reply" goes to the list.

15 out of 17 of your mail lists are for windows software. if you do not like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy your software and leave the free software developers alone.

and buy all means, leave it alone in the name of netiquette!

carol

heh :)
All sourceforge, LKML and so many other lists act this same way. (reply goes to the list )

That's not true. LKML does not set Reply-To to the list. Neither do the GNOME lists. And the two sourceforge lists I spot checked don't either, though perhaps that is configurable per project.

What does that have to do with free v non-free software ?

Because it's a stupid, Microsoftish argument. Many more people use Outlook than Thunderbird, therefore everyone who uses Thunderbird should switch?

Of course not, that's also a silly argument. It amazes me that people try to use this false logic, rather than making reasoned arguments.

This has already been discussed to death, and the list is going to stay how it is. If people want to know why, they are free to read the prior discussion.

-Yosh

On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 01:32 -0700, Manish Singh wrote:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:15:51AM +0200, nuno alexandre wrote: heh :)
All sourceforge, LKML and so many other lists act this same way. (reply goes to the list )

That's not true. LKML does not set Reply-To to the list. Neither do the GNOME lists. And the two sourceforge lists I spot checked don't either, though perhaps that is configurable per project.

Well my bad, the ivtv list ( sf.net ) works this way - so, yes - maybe its configurable per project :)

nuno

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 10:00:17AM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

please continue to steal

[...]

leave it alone in the name of netiquette!

Ah, I understand:

Netiquette means that you are allowed to imply that someone is a thief but that you are not allowed to talk about mail list behaviour.

Thanks for making that clear to me.

did you have to pay to get gimp? maybe i am confused. i really think that ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v2.2/ is free to download and install yourself. i also think that these lists have been and are free to subscribe to since 2000 (or before) as i have been signed up for free and to receive. and that the original developers set everything up to work (very well) on gnu/linux since then (except recently with the file selector stuff -- and i have some very interesting theories about that which i keep freely to myself).

i am more than willing to be corrected -- in fact, a correction to these facts might help me out of what i consider to be a not good situation.

please, some facts that oppose these few facts i have....

also, do the other 15 mail lists have the history with gnu/linux that gimp has or are they about software and projects that were made to work with other operating systems?

fill me in. i have been using this crap gnu/linux for a very long time by now and i suspect there is plenty that i do not know. i need some one like you to explain it to me.

carol

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 09:15:51AM +0200, nuno alexandre wrote:

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 23:35 -0700, Carol Spears wrote:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

15 out of 17 mail lists I read have a reply-to header with the list address, the only other list which has one is one I only read and never reply - with those 15 mail lists, a "Reply" goes to the list.

15 out of 17 of your mail lists are for windows software. if you do not like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy your software and leave the free software developers alone.

and buy all means, leave it alone in the name of netiquette!

carol

heh :)
All sourceforge, LKML and so many other lists act this same way. (reply goes to the list )
What does that have to do with free v non-free software ?

sourceforge is only partly free and is definately younger than gimp.

which part is free? you might ask. to which i answer, the parts that you do not need to buy.

carol

ps very cute trick with the "users". thanks.

Hi,

nuno alexandre writes:

I quote:

"Batch mode is slow. Its not really a practical replacement for tools like ImageMagick or NetPBM when it comes to large scale image conversions or similar. At least not without writing some very clever scripts.

The problem with this approach is that gimp/script-fu has no built in procedures to itterate though a list of images. So you cant easily tell gimp to load up *.jpg and run predator.scm on them, at least not without it taking a _long_ time.

So you could write a shell script to fire up gimp in batch mode for each image, but that starts a new gimp for every image. And gimp startup time is very very slow, especially if you plan to repeat ir a few hndred times."

src: http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch-7.html

That page is old and what's said there isn't true any longer. gimp/script-fu has a way to easily iterate over all image files that match a file glob pattern. The Batch Mode tutorial on gimp.org explains how to do this.

Sven

On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 11:56 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Hello :)

nuno alexandre writes:
src: http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch-7.html

That page is old and what's said there isn't true any longer. gimp/script-fu has a way to easily iterate over all image files that match a file glob pattern. The Batch Mode tutorial on gimp.org explains how to do this.

Actually you are not the first one to email me /post about this. My apologizes.

nuno

* Andreas Waechter [06-25-05 00:58]:

No, Thunderbird should not "reply" to the list with the current settings of the list.

There is no "Reply-To" header, thus a "Reply" has to go to the address in the "From" header - which is the address of the original sender, not the list.

The List address is in the "To" field. Thus only a "Reply All" will go to the list as CC (and to the original sender as TO).

Don't blame my mail client for the set-up of the list.

Your *mail* client is *not* being blamed. It is *your* responsibility. No one disputes your choice of mail client, but it *is* your responsibility to see that *your* posts are properly addressed to the list, not the list's software or the people you are being discourteous to.

The *fault* is *all* yours. It is/was your choice.

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Andreas Waechter [06-25-05 00:58]:

No, Thunderbird should not "reply" to the list with the current settings of the list.

Your *mail* client is *not* being blamed.

if you had read the lines on which I answered, namely

>> Not sure what is going on in your Thunderbird, maybe a setting or
>> something, but "reply" should send it right back to the mail list.

you might have seen that the blame that "reply" is not going to the list *is* put on my Thunderbird.

responsibility. No one disputes your choice of mail client, but it *is* your responsibility to see that *your* posts are properly addressed to the list, not the list's software or the people you are being discourteous to.

Hm. Tell me please where I have been discourteous to people. I told my opinion about the setting of the list. My opinion might differ from other peoples' opinions. Is it discourteous to tell one's opinion?
*I* did not imply that anyone would steal like other people have done.

The *fault* is *all* yours. It is/was your choice.

Which fault?
That I tried to explain to nuno alexandre why he might have received an answer to his mail address instead of the list mail address?

Andreas

On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 13:58 +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

That I tried to explain to nuno alexandre why he might have received an answer to his mail address instead of the list mail address?

Yes, and I just asked the other person to pay some attention when replying to the list, to not send me a duplicate. This can't be bad, right ? I only asked.

Can we now, please, move along ?

nuno

* Andreas Waechter [06-25-05 07:02]: ...

you might have seen that the blame that "reply" is not going to the list *is* put on my Thunderbird.

No, you have the ability w/thunderbird to edit headers and to specify "To:" and cc and bcc addresses. *You* are responsible for what *you* send, whatever client your choose to use.

...

Hm. Tell me please where I have been discourteous to people.

sending list mail to private address and duplicates

I told my opinion about the setting of the list. My opinion might differ from other peoples' opinions. Is it discourteous to tell one's opinion?

you are entitled to your opinion, but *you* are responsible for the output of your chosen mail client and your posts of list mail.

*I* did not imply that anyone would steal like other people have done.

and *who* implied theft?

Which fault?

you are beating a dead horse.

That I tried to explain to nuno alexandre why he might have received an answer to his mail address instead of the list mail address?

don't *explain*, apologize and correct your actions. Accept responsibility for your actions and your choices. Don't blame them on software that you chose. It's still *your* choice.

there is *no* rebuttal. The thread is dead now!

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

Hm. Tell me please where I have been discourteous to people.

sending list mail to private address and duplicates

When? Are you talking about any of the messages with the current subject?

I just double-checked my "Sent" folder. All four messages on this subject that I have sent have one "TO" recipient (the list) and no CC recipient. As I took great care to edit the headers to avoid this.

So what are you talking about?

> and *who* implied theft?

Carol (cite: "please continue to steal").

And by the way, she sent that message not only to the list, but to my address as well.

That I tried to explain to nuno alexandre why he might have received an answer to his mail address instead of the list mail address?

don't *explain*, apologize and correct your actions.

Why should *I* apologize for something I haven't done?

It is obvious you don't even know what happened. Please inform yourself before you go on saying I have been discourteous to people.
It wasn't me who sent to nuno's private address.

Andreas

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 03:59:37PM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

Carol (cite: "please continue to steal").

it is very out of context now. can you point to where i can download any Windows operating system for free?

stripping the context from the email is cool, i should learn how to do this.

i am willing to be corrected. all you need to do is provide a url to where i can download Windows operating system for free that is not theft. if none can be provided, then your netiquette comes from an operating system which a person must either buy or steal to get and this is what i typed.

Andreas (cite: Carol (cite: "please continue to steal")). beautiful. thanks for joining the mail list and showing how it is done.

carol

Carol Spears wrote:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 03:59:37PM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

Carol (cite: "please continue to steal").

it is very out of context now. can you point to where i can download any Windows operating system for free?

Ok, if you need your own sentence explained to you: Here is the full sentence:

if you do not like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy
your software and leave the free software developers alone.

According to that, there is free software, bought software and stolen software.

I legally use some software that is not free and which I did not buy *). Thus according to your categorization it must be stolen software.

i am willing to be corrected. all you need to do is provide a url to where i can download Windows operating system for free that is not theft.

Not necessary, see above - your sentence where you imply I am a thief does not speak of Windows so I do not have to prove that windows is available for free (but btw, at university many years ago, Microsoft gave Windows Licences to students for free)

*) usually the software has to be bought, but I got the licence for free (for helping in beta testing)

Andreas

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 05:29:56PM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 03:59:37PM +0200, Andreas Waechter wrote:

Carol (cite: "please continue to steal").

it is very out of context now. can you point to where i can download any Windows operating system for free?

Ok, if you need your own sentence explained to you: Here is the full sentence:

if you do not like the way the list has always worked, please continue to steal or buy
your software and leave the free software developers alone.

According to that, there is free software, bought software and stolen software.

I legally use some software that is not free and which I did not buy *). Thus according to your categorization it must be stolen software.

Please shut up. You screwed up, made a stupid illogical argument, and now are trying (and failing) to save face. Be an adult and accept that you screwed up.

Any more offtopic comments from you and I will remove you from this list.

-Yosh