ImageMagick vs GD - Page 3

mholtum · June 18th, 2005, 01:25 AM

wsftp is decent as is cuteftp. Check out www.tucows.com there are a few. I use CuteFTP Pro. (not free) For a great Open source FTP program that is completely free, try filezilla.

I am not sure if the FTP in Dreamweaver is the issue.. Probably not. Just a thought.

cgmojoco · June 18th, 2005, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mholtum

wsftp is decent as is cuteftp. Check out www.tucows.com there are a few. I use CuteFTP Pro. (not free) For a great Open source FTP program that is completely free, try filezilla.

I am not sure if the FTP in Dreamweaver is the issue.. Probably not. Just a thought.

Thanks Hotlum, I'll try, yes I don't think it is the issue either, however it's worth a shot and I appreciate your time and help.

At this point I think this has us all (Brian, myself and my host) stumped.

I hope Brian comes along and proves me wrong!!! I know the guy is real busy right now so I'll have to be patient ( I guess I'm a patient waiting for the doctor of coding to help me).

By the way, is there a noticeable difference between GD2 and ImageMagick resizing IMAGE QUALITY?

I really need my site to go live tomorrow, perhaps I don't need to keep pushing to try ImageMagick (since it doesn't work for me) if GD2 has the same quality (although from what I've heard ImageMagick is faster and less server intensive so at some point I would like to have it working!)

***edit, I found this info about the quality comparison (between GD2 and Image::Magick) if anyone wishes to have a look:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum88/5695.htm

mholtum · June 18th, 2005, 01:52 AM

I used GD2 first because I couldnt get IM to function properly.. But when I figured it out the only difference I saw was speed. The quality was the same. What path are you using for IM? I finally got it to work with /usr/bin/

cgmojoco · June 18th, 2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mholtum

I used GD2 first because I couldnt get IM to function properly.. But when I figured it out the only difference I saw was speed. The quality was the same. What path are you using for IM? I finally got it to work with /usr/bin/

The script that I ran (see my original post in this thread) stated that it found Image::Magick and that is was functioning correctly in directory:
/usr/local/bin/

I've tried using this path in VBaGallery along with:
/usr/local/bin
/usr/bin/
/usr/bin

and plenty more, none work at the moment.

My host (Ipower) swears that Image::Magick is installed and functioning correctly...they ran their own tests as well.

I am going to bang my head through a wall if I find out that this is my simple mistake somewhere!

By the way, for some this might be a helpful troubleshooter, this was the tool I used to test ImageMagicks compatability (see attached)---you upload the files to your cgi-bin and run them, it runs a test and prints the results to screen.

mholtum · June 18th, 2005, 02:43 AM

I actually had to get Brian to look at my issue and with shell access he was able to figure it out for me..

imported_Blaminator · June 18th, 2005, 08:18 AM

imagemagick definately

cgmojoco · June 20th, 2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mholtum

I actually had to get Brian to look at my issue and with shell access he was able to figure it out for me..

Unfortunatley, I do not have shell access to the server, yes, I'm sure Brian would have figured it out already if I did

Just for future reference, in case anyone else needs this info, I used the filezilla FTP program and was able to select the correct uploading format (ASCII vs. Binary).

FYI after re-uploading and re-installing gallery, I still receive the same error, this was not the problem.

Thanks-
Chris

Grae · June 23rd, 2005, 02:46 AM

After reading this thread, I decided to give IM a try. Seemed to work on my first attempt. However, I uploaded a few pics to test that it was working and got some surprising results. My gallery options are to keep originals, resize normal image to 600, and keep original quality (-1). Below are the file size results of one particular image after being resized:

imagemagick
1024x768 => 199.01 kb (original)
600x480 => 84.87kb (normal)

GD2
1024x768 => 199.01 kb (original)
600x480 => 26.68 kb (normal)

Any ideas?

cgmojoco · June 23rd, 2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grae

After reading this thread, I decided to give IM a try. Seemed to work on my first attempt. However, I uploaded a few pics to test that it was working and got some surprising results. My gallery options are to keep originals, resize normal image to 600, and keep original quality (-1). Below are the file size results of one particular image after being resized:

imagemagick
1024x768 => 199.01 kb (original)
600x480 => 84.87kb (normal)

GD2
1024x768 => 199.01 kb (original)
600x480 => 26.68 kb (normal)

Any ideas?

Perhaps the larger file size also means that the visual quality is better. This is what I am seeking, I just need a little bit more quality and can afford a little bit bigger file sizes.

I hope it's not bigger and the SAME quality!

dafire · June 23rd, 2005, 06:36 AM

I'm not sure about what happend with the size problem here but I remeber that I had to hack coppermine so it uses a different commandline with imagemagic.

the problem there was that I was uploading photos I made with my digital camera and it saves a huge amount of metadata with the files, like all settings used for the photograph, time and when I changed the script to strip this information of when creating the thumbs and resizing it had a huge impact on the size of the result files.

cgmojoco · June 26th, 2005, 01:30 AM

I just started using ImageMagick and it was worth the weeks wait while Brian figured out what was wrong with the settings my host had implemented on the server.

ImageMagick is faster and has better quality.

sinjix · November 26th, 2006, 07:23 PM

does this have anything to do with the quality of thumbnails?