in reply to Image Magick - Sample vs. Scale

What image format are you using? That's where the file size lies (in the format). I suggest you use PNG.


MJD says you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!
I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6x+5.8x. I take requests.
** The Third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Image Magick - Sample vs. Scale
by shotgunefx (Parson) on Feb 28, 2003 at 09:35 UTC
    I'd have to disagree about PNG if this is something that will reside on a website. It's an odd thing but I had a problem where any NT 4.x computer running IE 4.* would totally freeze solid and requirie a hard reset when trying to view a client site. It turned out is was becasue of a PNG on the site. Granted they are both old software but if appeasing consumers is the goal, giving them a hard boot is not the way to do it.

    -Lee

    "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

      So because of a few people who refuse to upgrade their ancient software, we shouldn't use new things that save time and bandwidth for the other 99.999% of browsers? Guess it's back to gopher then!

        Depends what you're doing. A company that's geared towards their user would certainly care about something like this. If I'm trying to sell someone something, I'm going try hard as hell to make it as easy as possible to purchase from me with as little requirements as possible. Many customers shop from work were their software is not their choice. Merchants want shopper's money, not their HTML compliance. It's about selling stuff. I could care less as long as the work lays out decent and functionally supports their needs. I do support compliance and would love it if everyone actually followed standards. (Things do seem to be getting better in this regard)

        I'm not saying that no one should use PNG files but I think warning of the possibility of such a customer offensive act is certainly worth note. As an aside, it was certainly a difficult problem to debug as the machine required a hard reboot as soon as the page attempted to load which made finding the problem a real bitch. It may not be all PNG files in this situation. Maybe the PNG in question was the PNG of death and hit things just so. I don't know why and don't really care. There was enough angry customers calling my client to put myself off using them in these types of applications for the awhile.

        -Lee

        "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
Re: Re: Image Magick - Sample vs. Scale
by db2admin (Acolyte) on Mar 01, 2003 at 03:30 UTC
    The format is JPG which should have no bearing in the ultimate file size. I guess what I'm trying to determine is the difference between Sample and Scale. The Image Magick website says that Sample scales an image with pixel sampling. This leads me to believe there should be a reduction in the number of pixels and ultimately the file size. Is this true? I've resampled images in photo editors before (i.e. Image Expert) and successfully reduced a file size from 300k to 40k without compromizing web photo quality. Again, I am not reducing the image size just the file size.

    Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

    David K.

      Did you have a look at the quality option? From the docs it looks like this might be the way to go.

      -- Hofmator