quickly convert hundreds of images from jpg to gif

unwashed potato! · 14 Feb 2009 at 14:33

is there any software that will allow me to simply convert a large amount of jpg's (roughly 300) to a gif?

i started saving a load of images as jpg as there is only started as 1/2 loading on a page at a time but not it can be around 60 at a time and this takes a long time to load so need to decrease the file size of the images but this will take ages to do them all manually.

thankss

Izi · 14 Feb 2009 at 15:24

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=batch+convert+jpeg+to+gif

RobH · 14 Feb 2009 at 16:11

Irfanview, it has a batch convert/rename/resize/resample feature and is dead easy to use.

K.C. Leblanc · 14 Feb 2009 at 17:53

RobH said:
Irfanview, it has a batch convert/rename/resize/resample feature and is dead easy to use.

Agreed,

You might however be better off keeping them as JPEGs and increasing the compression. GIF works best with pictures that contain large areas of solid colour, so it it's for buttons and cartoons. If you have the pictures in a loss less format (e.g. BMP), it's better to start from this.

Lastly, have you reduced the resolution, of are you doing this on the fly using the HTML code in your web site. If not, reduce them to the correct size.

Energize · 14 Feb 2009 at 18:02

PNG is the successor to JPG, considerably better compression, gif looks crap.

unwashed potato! · 14 Feb 2009 at 18:17

thought said:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=batch+convert+jpeg+to+gif

Results 1 - 10 of about 635,000

yes it is very hard

ifranview seems to do what i want. thanks all.

Hatter The Mad · 14 Feb 2009 at 18:19

Energize said:
PNG is the successor to JPG, considerably better compression, gif looks crap.

Not true - PNG doesn't have any lossy compression features. Sometimes there is a need for lossy compression to get file sizes down to acceptable levels.

PNG is certainly a successor to GIF.

Energize · 14 Feb 2009 at 18:45

Sorry, meant GIF not JPG.

Definately don't use GIF though. I find I can reduce compression to about 80% before I start to notice a loss of quality with JPG.

unwashed potato! · 14 Feb 2009 at 19:28

i went with gif in the end and there was no noticeable difference in the quality but a massive reduction in the size so loading the pages is much much faster now

. haven't checked every single image though but will do and if so will try png instead.

Energize · 14 Feb 2009 at 22:10

Mammalian said:
i went with gif in the end and there was no noticeable difference in the quality but a massive reduction in the size so loading the pages is much much faster now . haven't checked every single image though but will do and if so will try png instead.

Png will be much larger because of the colourspace.

Instead of using gif, which is a lossless format, you could simply convert the gifs to jpegs which should reduce the filesize because you have reduced the colourspace to 8-bit. If you can't tell a difference though, the images must have been exceptionally low quality to begin with! In my experience GIF files are larger than JPG files with their full colourspace anyway so I would try increasing the jpeg compression instead of using gifs, the filesize will be much smaller.