|
|
Posted by Andy Hassall on 06/10/60 11:17
On 30 May 2005 12:36:47 GMT, Daniel Tryba <partmapsswen@invalid.tryba.nl>
wrote:
>Andy Hassall <andy@andyh.co.uk> wrote:
>> PHP's image functions are based on GD, which as you say are not great for
>> photographic images.
>
>Funny, I never noticed this... What is the problem of GD with
>photographs? I don't see anything wrong...
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.
>> ImageMagick does a better job on photographs - although you usually have to
>> call it as an external process. It's also faster.
>
>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.
Michael Rostkowski posted a set of benchmarks a while back:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.php/msg/a676e8f1a175b4ed
--
Andy Hassall / <andy@andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk>
<http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|