Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Snapper 1.20
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris Bell (News)
Dec 23, 2012, 5:30:10 PM12/23/12
to
hris Johnson <chrisjoh...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that version 1.20 of Snapper is now
> available.
Thank you, Chris. I use Snapper regularly and your recent improvements
will be very useful.
Chris Bell.
> I am pleased to announce that version 1.20 of Snapper is now
> available.
Thank you, Chris. I use Snapper regularly and your recent improvements
will be very useful.
Chris Bell.
M Harding
Dec 24, 2012, 5:35:50 AM12/24/12
to
In article <5302c9b...@highpath.net>,
I'd like to second that. Many thanks.
Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ris...@mdharding.org.uk
Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ris...@mdharding.org.uk
Peter Young
Dec 24, 2012, 6:06:26 AM12/24/12
to
On 24 Dec 2012 M Harding <ris...@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <5302c9b...@highpath.net>,
> Chris Bell (News) <ne...@highpath.net> wrote:
>> hris Johnson <chrisjoh...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> I am pleased to announce that version 1.20 of Snapper is now
>>> available.
>> Thank you, Chris. I use Snapper regularly and your recent
>> improvements will be very useful.
> I'd like to second that. Many thanks.
Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
> In article <5302c9b...@highpath.net>,
> Chris Bell (News) <ne...@highpath.net> wrote:
>> hris Johnson <chrisjoh...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> I am pleased to announce that version 1.20 of Snapper is now
>>> available.
>> Thank you, Chris. I use Snapper regularly and your recent
>> improvements will be very useful.
> I'd like to second that. Many thanks.
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter Young and family
Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52, England
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
pny...@ormail.co.uk
patric aristide
Dec 24, 2012, 8:29:58 PM12/24/12
to
On 2012-12-24, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2012 M Harding <ris...@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <5302c9b...@highpath.net>,
>> Chris Bell (News) <ne...@highpath.net> wrote:
>>> hris Johnson <chrisjoh...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>> I am pleased to announce that version 1.20 of Snapper is now
>>>> available.
>
>>> Thank you, Chris. I use Snapper regularly and your recent
>>> improvements will be very useful.
>
>> I'd like to second that. Many thanks.
>
> Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
>
+1
> On 24 Dec 2012 M Harding <ris...@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <5302c9b...@highpath.net>,
>> Chris Bell (News) <ne...@highpath.net> wrote:
>>> hris Johnson <chrisjoh...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>> I am pleased to announce that version 1.20 of Snapper is now
>>>> available.
>
>>> Thank you, Chris. I use Snapper regularly and your recent
>>> improvements will be very useful.
>
>> I'd like to second that. Many thanks.
>
> Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
>
--
GL
Steve Fryatt
Jan 1, 2013, 5:51:12 PM1/1/13
to
On 24 Dec, Peter Young wrote in message
<d3f90e035...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>:
> Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
For capturing screenshots, you're usually better off with lossless
compression, however. JPEGs of dialogue boxes, for example, really don't
look good -- especially if they end up being printed.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn & RISC OS Show
Saturday 20 April 2013
http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
<d3f90e035...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>:
> Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
compression, however. JPEGs of dialogue boxes, for example, really don't
look good -- especially if they end up being printed.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn & RISC OS Show
Saturday 20 April 2013
http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Chris Johnson
Jan 1, 2013, 6:39:48 PM1/1/13
to
In article <mpro.mfyy4w08...@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
--
Chris Johnson
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Dec, Peter Young wrote in message
> <d3f90e035...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>:
> > Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
> For capturing screenshots, you're usually better off with lossless
> compression, however. JPEGs of dialogue boxes, for example, really
> don't look good -- especially if they end up being printed.
I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
> On 24 Dec, Peter Young wrote in message
> <d3f90e035...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>:
> > Me too, particularly the "save as jpg" option.
> For capturing screenshots, you're usually better off with lossless
> compression, however. JPEGs of dialogue boxes, for example, really
> don't look good -- especially if they end up being printed.
fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
--
Chris Johnson
John Rickman Iyonix
Jan 2, 2013, 4:07:03 PM1/2/13
to
Chris Johnson wrote
It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
of work.
--
John Rickman - http://mug.riscos.org/
stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
of work.
--
John Rickman - http://mug.riscos.org/
patric aristide
Jan 3, 2013, 9:24:40 AM1/3/13
to
Snapper now lives permanently on my Iconbar.
patric
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 3, 2013, 9:36:00 AM1/3/13
to
In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
> > fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
> > you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
> stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
> then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
> of work.
My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> > fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
> > you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
> stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
> then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
> of work.
SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John Rickman Iyonix
Jan 3, 2013, 11:53:37 AM1/3/13
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
> In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
> John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
>>> fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
>>> you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
>> It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
>> stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
>> then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
>> of work.
> My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
One of the excellent improvements made by ROL that sadly is lost to
users of RISCOS 5:-(
> In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
> John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
>>> fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
>>> you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
>> It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
>> stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
>> then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
>> of work.
> My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
users of RISCOS 5:-(
Dave Plowman (News)
Jan 3, 2013, 12:52:15 PM1/3/13
to
In article <b01e55085...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
shots as I hardly ever use Paint. I've had Snapper for ages - bought with
Dplingscan when it was called something else. ;-)
--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.
John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
> > In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
> > John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
> >>> fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
> >>> you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> >> It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
> >> stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
> >> then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
> >> of work.
> > My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> > SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
> One of the excellent improvements made by ROL that sadly is lost to
> users of RISCOS 5:-(
Right - didn't know that. I must admit to not knowing it did save screen
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
> > In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
> > John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
> >>> fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
> >>> you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> >> It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
> >> stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
> >> then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
> >> of work.
> > My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> > SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
> One of the excellent improvements made by ROL that sadly is lost to
> users of RISCOS 5:-(
shots as I hardly ever use Paint. I've had Snapper for ages - bought with
Dplingscan when it was called something else. ;-)
--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.
Dave Symes
Jan 3, 2013, 1:51:55 PM1/3/13
to
In article <5308488...@davenoise.co.uk>,
out as:
ICO
GIF
BMP
TARGA
D.
--
Dave Triffid
Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
> John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
> > > fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
> > > you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> > It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
> > stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
> > then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
> > of work.
> My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
If you have a later version of paint (2.70) on RO 6.20 you can also save
> In article <c37ce8075...@rickman.argonet.co.uk>,
> John Rickman Iyonix <ric...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In
> > > fact screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but
> > > you soon start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> > It was a game changer for me. Because of the new facility I have
> > stopped using Paint and switched to Snapper. I used to grab the sprite
> > then convert via !FSIBatch. The direct save to jpeg will save a lot
> > of work.
> My version of Paint (2.56) allows you to save a screen capture as a
> SPRITE, JPEG or PNG.
out as:
ICO
GIF
BMP
TARGA
D.
--
Dave Triffid
Steve Fryatt
Jan 6, 2013, 7:27:40 AM1/6/13
to
On 1 Jan, Chris Johnson wrote in message
<530772a2c1chr...@spamcop.net>:
That wasn't a dig at Snapper, which is an extremely useful utility that I
wouldn't be without.
It was just an observation based on the fact that I seem to be increasingly
getting JPEGs of application windows sent to me for The WROCC. These don't
tend to fare well artifact-wise, especially once they have gone through the
decode-rescale-convert-to-JPEG-for-PDF cycle. They're also not that crisp
when printed, whereas sprites/PNGs/whatever are. If I have access to the
application in question, I tend to re-grab the images as sprites myself
whenever possible and discard the original JPEGs[1].
IME, zipped-up sprites of dialogue boxes compress fairly well, and are
usually the best way of supplying such images to publications. I can't
remember off-hand what Archive's preferences are, but they're what Jim
always gets off me.
1. Observant readers of the January issue might notice the RISC OS 4 window
furniture on the SyncDiscs windows purporting to have been running on an
ARMini, for example; usually it's the other way around... :-)
<530772a2c1chr...@spamcop.net>:
wouldn't be without.
It was just an observation based on the fact that I seem to be increasingly
getting JPEGs of application windows sent to me for The WROCC. These don't
tend to fare well artifact-wise, especially once they have gone through the
decode-rescale-convert-to-JPEG-for-PDF cycle. They're also not that crisp
when printed, whereas sprites/PNGs/whatever are. If I have access to the
application in question, I tend to re-grab the images as sprites myself
whenever possible and discard the original JPEGs[1].
IME, zipped-up sprites of dialogue boxes compress fairly well, and are
usually the best way of supplying such images to publications. I can't
remember off-hand what Archive's preferences are, but they're what Jim
always gets off me.
1. Observant readers of the January issue might notice the RISC OS 4 window
furniture on the SyncDiscs windows purporting to have been running on an
ARMini, for example; usually it's the other way around... :-)
Peter Young
Jan 6, 2013, 8:28:27 AM1/6/13
to
On 6 Jan 2013 Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 1 Jan, Chris Johnson wrote in message
> <530772a2c1chr...@spamcop.net>:
>> In article <mpro.mfyy4w08...@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
>> Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> For capturing screenshots, you're usually better off with lossless
>>> compression, however. JPEGs of dialogue boxes, for example, really
>>> don't look good -- especially if they end up being printed.
>>
>> I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In fact
>> screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but you soon
>> start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> That wasn't a dig at Snapper, which is an extremely useful utility that I
> wouldn't be without.
> It was just an observation based on the fact that I seem to be increasingly
> getting JPEGs of application windows sent to me for The WROCC. These don't
> tend to fare well artifact-wise, especially once they have gone through the
> decode-rescale-convert-to-JPEG-for-PDF cycle. They're also not that crisp
> when printed, whereas sprites/PNGs/whatever are. If I have access to the
> application in question, I tend to re-grab the images as sprites myself
> whenever possible and discard the original JPEGs[1].
> IME, zipped-up sprites of dialogue boxes compress fairly well, and are
> usually the best way of supplying such images to publications. I can't
> remember off-hand what Archive's preferences are, but they're what Jim
> always gets off me.
Guilty, Your Honour. If I write again, zipped sprites it will be.
> On 1 Jan, Chris Johnson wrote in message
> <530772a2c1chr...@spamcop.net>:
>> In article <mpro.mfyy4w08...@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
>> Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> For capturing screenshots, you're usually better off with lossless
>>> compression, however. JPEGs of dialogue boxes, for example, really
>>> don't look good -- especially if they end up being printed.
>>
>> I would agree with you - however, I acceded to popular request. In fact
>> screen shots don't look too bad at high quality settings, but you soon
>> start to see artifacts as the quality is dropped.
> That wasn't a dig at Snapper, which is an extremely useful utility that I
> wouldn't be without.
> It was just an observation based on the fact that I seem to be increasingly
> getting JPEGs of application windows sent to me for The WROCC. These don't
> tend to fare well artifact-wise, especially once they have gone through the
> decode-rescale-convert-to-JPEG-for-PDF cycle. They're also not that crisp
> when printed, whereas sprites/PNGs/whatever are. If I have access to the
> application in question, I tend to re-grab the images as sprites myself
> whenever possible and discard the original JPEGs[1].
> IME, zipped-up sprites of dialogue boxes compress fairly well, and are
> usually the best way of supplying such images to publications. I can't
> remember off-hand what Archive's preferences are, but they're what Jim
> always gets off me.
> 1. Observant readers of the January issue might notice the RISC OS 4 window
> furniture on the SyncDiscs windows purporting to have been running on an
> ARMini, for example; usually it's the other way around... :-)
Chris Johnson
Jan 6, 2013, 9:08:17 AM1/6/13
to
In article <mpro.mg7eld06...@stevefryatt.org.uk>,
conversion process, the images are now almost entirely jpeg in an
ArtWork wrapper.
--
Chris Johnson
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> I can't remember off-hand what Archive's preferences are, but
> they're what Jim always gets off me.
I notice that in the Publisher+ files of the mag I get for the
> I can't remember off-hand what Archive's preferences are, but
> they're what Jim always gets off me.
conversion process, the images are now almost entirely jpeg in an
ArtWork wrapper.
--
Chris Johnson
0 new messages