Opnion needed on image manipulation (not neccesarilly PHP)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • frizzle
    #1

    Opnion needed on image manipulation (not neccesarilly PHP)

    Hi there,

    i have a site for some friends who are abbroad for school.
    it has a mysql guestbook and a few other things to communicate.
    it also needs a photo-album on it.

    now since my friends don't have a computer of their own over there,
    they can't install a small app to reduce the size of the digital cam's
    pics.

    now my question, what would be the best way to reduce the size of the
    pics
    to approximately max. 500 px * 500 px.
    I could use PHP of course, but i'm not really satisfied with the
    quality of
    PHP-resized images... (it's ok for thumbnails, but not for the large
    versions...)

    i hope it's all clear..
    any clues out there?

    any help is greatly appreciated!

    Tags: None
    • Andy Hassall
      #2
      Re: Opnion needed on image manipulation (not neccesarilly PHP)

      On 30 May 2005 03:10:26 -0700, "frizzle" <phpfrizzle@gma il.com> wrote:
      [color=blue]
      >now my question, what would be the best way to reduce the size of the
      >pics
      >to approximately max. 500 px * 500 px.
      >I could use PHP of course, but i'm not really satisfied with the
      >quality of
      >PHP-resized images... (it's ok for thumbnails, but not for the large
      >versions...)[/color]

      PHP's image functions are based on GD, which as you say are not great for
      photographic images.

      ImageMagick does a better job on photographs - although you usually have to
      call it as an external process. It's also faster.

      --
      Andy Hassall / <andy@andyh.co. uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk >
      <http://www.andyhsoftwa re.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool

        Comment

        • Daniel Tryba
          #3
          Re: Opnion needed on image manipulation (not neccesarilly PHP)

          Andy Hassall <andy@andyh.co. uk> wrote:[color=blue]
          > PHP's image functions are based on GD, which as you say are not great for
          > photographic images.[/color]

          Funny, I never noticed this... What is the problem of GD with
          photographs? I don't see anything wrong...
          [color=blue]
          > ImageMagick does a better job on photographs - although you usually have to
          > call it as an external process. It's also faster.[/color]

          I've heard this before somewhere else about a year or two ago. I
          searched for benchmarks and found that sometimes gd is faster, sometimes
          imagemagick IIRC. A link to usefull benchmarks would be nice.

            Comment

            • Andy Hassall
              #4
              Re: Opnion needed on image manipulation (not neccesarilly PHP)

              On 30 May 2005 12:36:47 GMT, Daniel Tryba <partmapsswen@i nvalid.tryba.nl >
              wrote:
              [color=blue]
              >Andy Hassall <andy@andyh.co. uk> wrote:[color=green]
              >> PHP's image functions are based on GD, which as you say are not great for
              >> photographic images.[/color]
              >
              >Funny, I never noticed this... What is the problem of GD with
              >photographs? I don't see anything wrong...[/color]

              I haven't got any side-by-side examples to show here, just vague memory of
              last time I used it (for a bunch of employee photos) where I'm sure I got very
              slightly better thumbnails out of imagemagick.

              Although the difference likely isn't huge unless you hit one of the gotchas
              such as not using true colour mode in GD.
              [color=blue][color=green]
              >> ImageMagick does a better job on photographs - although you usually have to
              >> call it as an external process. It's also faster.[/color]
              >
              >I've heard this before somewhere else about a year or two ago. I
              >searched for benchmarks and found that sometimes gd is faster, sometimes
              >imagemagick IIRC. A link to usefull benchmarks would be nice.[/color]

              Michael Rostkowski posted a set of benchmarks a while back:
              Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
              http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.php/msg/a676e8f1a175b4ed


              --
              Andy Hassall / <andy@andyh.co. uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk >
              <http://www.andyhsoftwa re.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool

                Comment

                • Chuck Anderson
                  #5
                  Re: Opnion needed on image manipulation (not neccesarilly PHP)

                  Daniel Tryba wrote:
                  [color=blue]
                  >Andy Hassall <andy@andyh.co. uk> wrote:
                  >
                  >[color=green]
                  >>PHP's image functions are based on GD, which as you say are not great for
                  >>photographi c images.
                  >>
                  >>[/color]
                  >
                  >Funny, I never noticed this... What is the problem of GD with
                  >photographs? I don't see anything wrong...
                  >
                  >
                  >[/color]
                  I find that nearly all resized photo images need some touch up with the
                  unsharp mask or they look a bit blurred. That is why I started using
                  ImageMagick.

                  --
                  *************** **************
                  Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
                  Chuck Anderson's Cycle Tourist Home Page
                  http://www.CycleTourist.com

                  Integrity is obvious.
                  The lack of it is common.
                  *************** **************

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...