Topic: BMP to PNG Mass Conversion Program?

[Alieo]

Does anyone know of a software that makes it easy to "mass-convert" 4,323 *.bmp files into *.png files? You know those Mario maps I post in the Desktops 2011/2012 every month? Well, it's growing bigger and bigger, and pings save space, but I REFUSE to do rename all 4,323 files manually!

I have Irfanview, and I know you can easily save files that way by pressing the right arrow and S for save, but I want a program that you can select an input directory (folder containing the current BMP files) and select an output directory (converted PNG files in new folder).

Any links to any downloads of such software would be much appreciated, and thank you!

[-<WillyP>-]

XnView Software - Free graphic and photo viewer, converter, organizer

[Alieo]

Thanks, WillyP, and congrats on your 1,666th post! That's a thousand over a hell of a lot!

[Kaiaatzl]

You are so... something.  I can't explain what you are with words.

[TechPro]

Alieo,  IrfanView also batch converts.  It can easily do what your asking. Check it's menus again.

Of course, Xnview also does it too.

[Alieo]

Dang it! I can't use either one! You see, I use MS-Paint to do all my detailed pixel work, and when you "Copy to," there is no option to save the files as PNG in paint. You can save the WHOLE file as a PNG, but not the individual 32 x 32 pixel squares that I'm working on. I'm not going to sweat it that much. If I want to upload some sprite sheet to a website, I'll just save it as a PNG, and whoever downloads it can take it from there. BMPs may be big, but they're not too bad. Those 4,323+ files I have don't even fill half a blank CD anyway.

I was just wondering because I've been upgrading each individual sprite from it's old 32 x 32 pixel (really a 16 x16 enlarged) into a hi-resolution 32 x 32, so there's no pixellation, and I thought it would be a good chance to start from scratch and name them as PNGs.

Oh, well. No need to reinvent the wheel. As I make these Mario Maps, if I put a green palm tree (which is file #546) on top of a land tile of Tile #1, then I could easily title (or number) that particular hybrid tile as "1,546" by way of "Copy to," but it has to be in BMP form. Or if I put a red cactus (947), or a green cactus (547) on top of a desert tile (2), the file name becomes "2,947" & "2,547" respectively, etc.

And yes, I memorize the file "names" (numbers) of all 4,323+ tiles. They're color coded too. 

[TechPro]

Dang it! I can't use either one! You see, I use MS-Paint to do all my detailed pixel work, and when you "Copy to," there is no option to save the files as PNG in paint. You can save the WHOLE file as a PNG, but not the individual 32 x 32 pixel squares that I'm working on. ...

So what?  Just have Paint save as a BMP then use IrfanView or Xnview to convert.

Of course, you could just copy the 32x32 bit you're working on, then open IrfanView (or Xnview) and paste.  Then save as a PNG.

Did you know IrfanView can do nearly all (if not all and more) of the editing that Paint does?  Open a file in IrfanView then press F12 to "Show Paint dialog" ... And have fun.

Personally, using Paint for anything at all is ... old school.

[Scyphi]

Although some artists still use Paint just because they like the challenge of having to work with it's...backwardedness.

[-<WillyP>-]

And some people use the Gimp. Because Photoshop is too expensive.

[DarkWing]

And others user Paint.NET because they want the power of Photoshop (and not just the simple tools of plain old Paint), are using Windows, and Paint.NET is FREE!  ... yes, the Gimp is also free, but I think a lot of people will find Paint.NET a lot easier to learn the first time.

It comes down to whatever makes you happy, but I agree with TechPro.  Why use plain old Paint when you can do so much better?

[Alieo]

It comes down to whatever makes you happy, but I agree with TechPro.  Why use plain old Paint when you can do so much better?

Okay, here's me in action using MS-Paint. For me, it's fast, it's easy to navigate, and great for simple graphic panel work when you don't really need to do any EXTREME photo editing.



...and that is why I use Paint, and also, why I am "old school!" 

[Matthew]

Honestly I find GIMP to be completely unusable for most anything other than just editing of an existing image. I had to take a star, put some text over it, and fit 2 of them onto a page to be cut in half. To make the stars I had to turn to paint, because simple shapes are beyond the capability of such a complex piece of software apparently. Then I spent literally a half hour just to copy and paste the final image so I had 2 of them in the right spot. And I still ended up with it being cut off a bit in printing.

[-<WillyP>-]

Alieo: If Paint works for you, go for it.

IHH: Like Photoshop, Gimp uses brushes for something like this. And as Gimp can use brushes made for Photoshop, there are thousands to choose from. It is also very easy to make your own brushes, or for that matter to just draw a star with lines. The Gimp does have a pretty steep learning curve at least compared to Paint. If Paint does what you want, and your happy with it, stick with Paint.

[Scyphi]

And others user Paint.NET because they want the power of Photoshop (and not just the simple tools of plain old Paint), are using Windows, and Paint.NET is FREE!

Actually, having used both Paint.NET and Photoshop myself, I find Paint.NET is, while very promising, still a far cry from Photoshop's capabilities. That, and I got frustrated with Paint.NET's way of doing things, finding that I had to put a lot more effort into doing things that would only take a couple clicks in Photoshop.

But I will admit that for those who don't want to spend the money or simply can't afford it, Paint.NET is the next best thing to Photoshop, that I've seen at least. Though I have heard good things about Gimp too, I've just never had the chance to use it.

[Alieo]

HAD to share this. This made me laugh!