After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 142261 - Lossless JPEG layers
Lossless JPEG layers
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 105623
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: Data
unspecified
Other All
: Low enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-05-10 10:51 UTC by claus
Modified: 2005-02-26 00:37 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description claus 2004-05-10 10:51:39 UTC
GIMP should be able to handle JPEG data as-is as "JPEG layers". They would only 
allow lossless transformations (e.g. rotation at 8x8 boundaries) until they are  
(maybe automatically) converted to "normal" bitmap layers.

Why this is useful:

. You could open a (non-GIMP-created) JPEG file (which contains a single JPEG 
layer), add an alpha channel, and store the result as a JNG file without losing 
information (that was not already lost in the original JPEG).

. It would be possible to create and handle MNGs with multiple JNG streams (this 
would require in-GIMP conversion of layers to JPEG data).

. You could add another non-JPEG layer on top of a JPEG image, store the result 
as a MNG or do re-quantization in GIMP when combining the layers (and only 
changing the JPEG data where it absolutely has to be, retaining the image 
quality in unchanged areas).
Comment 1 Dave Neary 2004-05-11 09:22:46 UTC
Hi,

This is *almost* a duplicate of bug #105623, since the idea is very similar. But
this is different in an important way. It is also similar to bug #121810, in a
sense that one way to accomplish the operation in that report is to rotate the
image losslessly, and clear the EXIF rotated indicator.

Cheers,
Dave.
Comment 2 Sven Neumann 2004-11-06 17:50:23 UTC
I tend to mark this on as a duplicate of bug #105623. One feature can't really
work w/o the other.
Comment 3 weskaggs 2005-02-26 00:37:23 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 105623 ***