GD netpbm imagemagick what is better?

for to resize and copy original photos into a new directory and to use
for a thumbnail gallery on the web;

what is better: GD, Netpbm or imagemagick and why?

very thank

*** nawfer escribió/wrote (Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:18:19 GMT):
> for to resize and copy original photos into a new directory and to use
> for a thumbnail gallery on the web;
>
> what is better: GD, Netpbm or imagemagick and why?

I particularly like ImageMagick because:

* My PHP version is too old for GD
* It's easy to use: I get thumbs with one line of code

I also suppose that being compiled software rather than interpreted it
should be faster but it's just a guess.

I've never used Netpbm.

--
-+ Álvaro G. Vicario - Burgos, Spain
+- http://www.demogracia.com (la web de humor barnizada para la intemperie)
++ Las dudas informáticas recibidas por correo irán directas a la papelera
-+ I'm not a free help desk, please don't e-mail me your questions
--

Alvaro G. Vicario wrote:

>> for to resize and copy original photos into a new directory and to use
>> for a thumbnail gallery on the web;
>>
>> what is better: GD, Netpbm or imagemagick and why?
>
> I particularly like ImageMagick because:
>
> * My PHP version is too old for GD
> * It's easy to use: I get thumbs with one line of code
>
> I also suppose that being compiled software rather than interpreted it
> should be faster but it's just a guess.

I use a combination of the two for the images I generate on the fly on one
of the sites I manage, as they are made large and then reduced.

I use the GD library to open the source background image and write the text
onto it, and then ImageMagick to scale it down to the correct size (yes,
this may sound inefficient ie "why don't you just make it small to start
with", but there are good reasons for doing it this way).

Initially I had GD resizing the image but then ran a bunch of tests and
ImageMagick is considerably faster at resizing than GD, at least for the
images I was using anyway.

--
Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/

> * My PHP version is too old for GD
> * It's easy to use: I get thumbs with one line of code

Your code, have you take online?
Is there a good link with examples?

> I use a combination of the two for the images I generate on the fly on one
> of the sites I manage, as they are made large and then reduced.

1- You use solution 'on the fly' only if you have one or few images?
But that's advantage to use gd with imagemagick, respect to use only
the second?

> I use the GD library to open the source background image and write the text
> onto it, and then ImageMagick to scale it down to the correct size (yes,
> this may sound inefficient ie "why don't you just make it small to start
> with", but there are good reasons for doing it this way).
>
> Initially I had GD resizing the image but then ran a bunch of tests and
> ImageMagick is considerably faster at resizing than GD, at least for the
> images I was using anyway.

2- This is another solution for to use both.
Which are the advantages?

3- For only resize images into a new directory to use after for web
gallery, you use only imagemagick?

For all 3 solutions, where have you look codes?

*** nawfer escribió/wrote (Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:17:52 GMT):
>> * It's easy to use: I get thumbs with one line of code
>
> Your code, have you take online?
> Is there a good link with examples?

Check the "Examples of ImageMagick Usage" link in the official site
http://www.imagemagick.org/

--
-+ Álvaro G. Vicario - Burgos, Spain
+- http://www.demogracia.com (la web de humor barnizada para la intemperie)
++ Las dudas informáticas recibidas por correo irán directas a la papelera
-+ I'm not a free help desk, please don't e-mail me your questions
--