Thanks for your explanation and clarification.

OK, I won't use BIMP then, per your recommendation.

I genuinely thank you for the above command line.

Thanks for your warning.

Oh...I'm quite disappointed to learn about it.

Patrice (a.k.a. PixLab) found that XnConvert is able to process tons of JPG files very quickly. Perhaps I should try XnConvert.

Based on what I learned after going to XnConvert's official website, the software is available as a native app for Microsoft Windows OS.

I shall use XnConvert for Microsoft Windows because:

(1) XnConvert's latest version is available unlike XnConvert for Debian/Linux where I need to install AppImage or Flatpak first on said Linux distro.
(2) XnConvert has a GUI compared to ImageMagick. I've been using Microsoft Windows OS all my life and only dabbled in Debian, Fedora and OpenBSD some years ago.


Sorry, would you like to clarify what you meant by "larger XnViewMP"?

I did notice that the software developer for XnConvert and XnViewMP is the same person/organization.
Moreover, I noticed that XnViewMP is available as a native app for Microsoft Windows; therefore I won't use XnViewMP on a Linux distro because I'll have to install AppImage or Flatpak first.

Last but not least, I wish to ask you for advice about the size of a JPG file.

According to your graph that you provided in one of your earlier posts, quality=80 is good for archival of personal JPG images.

Again, based on your graph, a quality=80 setting would produce a JPG file of size 200KB. That's why I'm a bit confused as to how you obtained a value of 400KB for a quality=50 setting.

Well if you go here: https://www.xnview.com/en/xnconvert/ there are various linux packages available. I have used a "portable" version before. Unpack and run.

There is also a flatpak version and it seems you do not like those.

What do I mean a larger XnViewMP - It is a viewer / cataloger that also has all the functions of XnConvert

Several linux options here: https://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=47317 I happen to prefer the appimage, but it is just a choice.

No need to go anywhere near Windows.

[/quote]According to your graph that you provided in one of your earlier posts, quality=80 is good for archival of personal JPG images.

Again, based on your graph, a quality=80 setting would produce a JPG file of size 200KB. That's why I'm a bit confused as to how you obtained a value of 400KB for a quality=50 setting. [/quote]

I do not know how you arrived at that conclusion. Look, you can determine a value by using a sample image and adjusting the compression in Gimp (this is a Gimp forum) from the Export dialogue.



Enable Show preview in image window and just above that is an estimate of file size for that image. Of course jpeg compression is a lossy format so you can not lay down hard and fast rule, it does depend on the image. A landscape photograph versus a line drawing.

Thanks for your recommendation.

There's a reason I don't install AppImage and/or Flatpak on my Debian distro.

My Debian distro is used for online banking, cryptocurrency trading, in particular XMR, Zcash, Dash and of course BTC.

Both AppImage and Flatpak do have security vulnerabilities (which software doesn't have them?) and they may not be fixed in time before hackers hack into my crypto wallets and steal my funds.

Thanks for your clarification.

Thanks for your sharing your experience.

I happen to be a Windows guy since the days of Windows 3.1 and only dabbled in Linux distros and OpenBSD some years ago.

Anyway I don't mind Microsoft sending telemetry about my use of XnConvert on my personal JPG files.

Sorry, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

You have been a great guy and I genuinely appreciate your help and very useful tips.

Cheers!