 | Oct 12 2009 |
ETNIER It appears that the developer has knocked out LEOPARD compatibility in the effort to provide Snow Leopard compatibility. Not good news at all. Did you really intend to do this????
(Version 3.0b2) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
 | Oct 12 2009 |
This new version of Snow Leopard uses quite a lot of SL-specific functionalities. For 10.5 and earlier, version 2.0.6 still works.
(Version 3.0b2) | |
 | Sep 20 2009 |
ALUAKZ Oh no! After almost 4 years of this app, I cannot use it anymore :( Please please get it to work on snow leopard
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Oct 12 2009 |
FABIEN CONUS The new version 3.0 is now compatible with Snow Leopard.
(Version 3.0b1) | |
| Feb 21 2008 |
JANITOR Any chances this get a Leopard update?
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 11 2007 |
ETNIER No Intel version? Hope one is pending. Love this app.
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 12 2007 |
JACK DAW I like this app and find it very useful. However, even when a folder full of images have finished processing, the wheels keep turning giving me no indication that the process has finished. This leaves me no option but to force quit everytime. I would love to continue using this great app, but would love it even more if this tiny problem is fixed.
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 11 2007 |
AIKOUSHA Errr... Why are all the files I processed with this, MUCH bigger afterwards? I definitely had it set to remove all 3 types of metadata, and left the quality checkbox OFF. If this worked right, it should have removed between 16K and 24K from the files, but instead nearly 60K was added to most of them. And when reviewing both the "cleaned" and non-cleaned images, the quality was listed the same, and the cleaned files showed no meta-data. What's up with this?!?
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 2 2005 |
RYAN elegant and straighforward utility... unlike the e-mail feature of iPhoto, actually makes your images small enough to email without loss of resolution.
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 10 2004 |
JFM Simple to use, useful, nice design - does exactly what it is expected to do, and seems to do it well! Glad to have found it, thanks to the developer (a fellow Swiss citizen, I have discovered!).
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 12 2004 |
UNRESORT while it does re-compress yer image, not purposefully or aggressively, based on the simple fact that you are saving a .jpg as a .jpg this is not for pros, so what? thanks to the dev :)
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 12 2004 |
ANONYMOUS The ReadMe files are aliases in the version I downloaded here.
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 12 2004 |
1WHOKNOWS what you do not understand is that you did not download that file or any other file "here"... you clicked a link for a download, and that resides on the developer's server, not the MU server. you downloaded it from the developer.
(Version 1.4.1) | |
| Oct 5 2003 |
ANONYMOUS Ep! Looks like you already found it yourself. Thanks! Now if you could only do the same for GIFs, and maybe add a progress bar... :)
(Version 1.3.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 4 2003 |
ICONUS This problem for adding a directory never happened to me ! I just tried on two different computers and it works fine. Can anyboy else report this bug ? Anonymous, could you please email me so we can work out this problem ?
(Version 1.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 3 2003 |
ANONYMOUS Adding a directory of images causes the program to beachball for a while, then either unexpectedly quit, or work normally again, but the directory name is never added to the list. Having to add files individually is no fun, especially since I have many images in separate subdirectories. It genuinely seems to reduce filesizes without recompression, though. Fabien, please fix how directories are handled so I can shrink all of my pictures without having to add them to the list individually!
(Version 1.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 29 2003 |
ANONYMOUS This upgrade makes SmallImage a contender. | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 11 2003 |
ICONUS After contacting the authors of the "mogrify" command I am now sure that the image is being recompressed, therefore inducing a loss of quality for high-quality JPEGs. I will soon release a version 1.0.1 with a modified documentation reflecting this. A new version 1.1 will be released soon, where you'll ba able to choose wether you want a quality change or not and letting you decide what quality you want. I appologize for the false advertisement.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 10 2003 |
ICONUS If your image has only one type of profile, removing the other two will of course not lower the filesize more. As for the quality loss, for some kind of images (I'm not sure which, yet) there is indeed a slight quality loss. You must understand that SmallImage is just a front-end to the "mogrify" command from the ImageMagick package. This command is not supposed to lower the quality of the image, and if it does I can't do anything about it except contact the author (which I'll do). As soon as I find out nore about this I'll post a fixed up version. Now, mark, be assured that I really appreciate any kind of comment, good or bad. But when you write: "don't bother wasting your time downloading this", I can't agree. SmallImage is free, I did it only to give a (hopefully) useful tool. Try it ! If you like it, good, if you don't, trash it. I got some very good feedback from people who tried my program, so maybe it is worth it, maybe not...
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 9 2003 |
MARK THE CLAIMS MADE BY THIS PROGRAM ARE FALSE. Sorry to get all bold there, but try it for yourself (or don't bother wasting your time downloading this and take my word for it): select an image, making sure it has no custom thumbnail, then reduce it with this program four times - once removing the ICC color profile, once removing IPTC, once removing the EXIF info, and once removing all three. Compare file sizes. Well, shucks, they're all about the same. Within a kilobyte or so of one another. What is the conclusion? The huge file size reductions, which really do occur, are the result or re-saving the JPG file, thus upping the compression and resulting in, yes, a more compressed and therefore lower quality image. This conclusion is borne out by opening each file in JPEGView, an OS 9 app that can show the compression ratio for an image (why can't I find an OS X app that does this? Hello, freeware developers...). I used a picture from my digital camera, with the original image showing a 11:1 compression ratio, but, surprise, when examining all of the other files, they show a ratio of 28:1. Whoops. Not knowing too much about ICC, IPTC, and EXIF metadata, it really can't be all that big, can it? What is EXIF data but a few bytes cataloguing a few pieces of information? And last time I mistakenly hit "Include ICC color profile" when saving a file in Photoshop, it added no more than a kilobyte or so. I wish metadata were making JPGs bloated, but it just isn't so. SmallImage accomplishes its huge file size reduction by the simple action of further compressing your image. Maybe one or two extra KB from removing the metadata, but that's all. Too bad. not sure if this is a purposeful sham by the author, or if he didn't quite know what was going on, but it sure doesn't do what it says. Please excuse the verbosity of this post, but I was pretty disappointed (and gullible). Also note that this is not a personal attack on the author...
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 9 2003 |
ANONYMOUS EXIF is killed......but picture quality afterwards is ROTTEN!!!
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 9 2003 |
HERVé Great ! I tested it and no image quality reduced.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 9 2003 |
The image itself isn't modified at all ! Only the comments, EXIF datas, ICC profiles are removed from the file.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 9 2003 |
The file-quality will be reduced heavely!!
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
|
Main
