If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
These forums remain online primarily for archival purposes. While posting is still possible, it should not be considered a means for support. Please login to our portal and submit a ticket if you require assistance and we'll be more than happy to assist you.
Regular updates are posted to our blog and we will continue to post important notices to the Script Security forum section here. You can subscribe to that forum to automatically receive notifications.
imagemagick - I could be wrong, but I don't think GD2 can write gifs (untill the patent expires..)
--edit--
I stand corrected seems 2.0.28 supports writing to gifs...
--edit--
I'm personally a fan of imagemagick, mainly because i use Gallery and it doesn't support GD.
Here's a list from the gallery authors as to why imagemagick/netpbm is better over GD:
If your stuck having to chose between the two for Coppermine or some other gallery then I'd probably go with GD2 for performance not image quality.
If your programming an application then you need to be able to use either. If the user had support for both I'd probably use both choosing the best for the task.
I'm sure Andrew could speak to server performance better than me and hope he does ... but what the heck. Creating images on the fly is a very server-intensive process. Screwing up with either GD or ImageMagick would be a very bad thing. Couple of general considerations while coding: Batch processing of images is best done off the server. If you do it then moderate it. Images should be stored after processing rather than created dynamically each time. Performance of GD2 and ImageMagick many vary from task to task but neither should be used to processing really large images. That 10MB press ready jpeg would be better off processed by PhotoShop.
If any of that makes sense then I'm doing pretty good for a Sunday morning.
"Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - Buddha
Elite: I think the gif patent was lifted last year, but I could be wrong.
sdjl: Thanks for the link. It might be outdated though, as they never mention GD2.
Buddha: Good idea about processing images offline. Thanks for the tip. Are you saying GD2 has better performance, but ImageMagick has better image quality?
As you guys have guessed, I am configuring an online gallery (vbadvanced). If anyone has anymore good links describing the differences I would appreciate it.
Just a side note, Gallery has something called gallery remote which packages a piece of java software with imagemagick. It allows you to process your images on your computer and then upload them to your gallery installation online
David
-----
Do you fear the obsolescence of the metanarrative apparatus of legitimation?
Are you saying GD2 has better performance, but ImageMagick has better image quality?
GD is linked to PHP as apposed to ImageMagick which is an external program. I'd give a slight advantage here to GD for performance. However, image processing is a CPU/memory intensive operation weather you use GD or ImageMagick. Compress images have to be uncompressed to process ... (atleast they did back in my day) ... which means your little 43KB jpeg could grow to half a MB or more in memory. It not usually for jpegs to be 10 to 20 times larger uncompressed. Just something else to consider while coding.
There is suppose to be a Imagick extension for PHP but I don't believe it's used here at Dathorn nor have I seen it used anywhere else ... yet.
ImageMagick seems to produce better images, IMHO. Those better images seem usually to be larger too. Your mileage may vary.
"Whatcha mean I shouldn't be rude to my clients?! If you want polite then there will be a substantial fee increase." - Buddha
Your mileage may vary.
Comment