Re: Image::Magick "geometry" argument?

Well it is very nonobvious, because IIRC the module only passes the same raw arguments you would use on the commandline on to ImageMagick. If you want to learn it, try to play around with ImageMagick on the commandline, using the regular docs. Those aren't excellent either, but better.

I've given up on using Image::Magick a long time ago, because it was so buggy and really didn't offer anything extra - I just wound up using system calls instead. Maybe it has become better or at least more stable now, I don't know.

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Comment on Re: Image::Magick "geometry" argument?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Image::Magick "geometry" argument? by Tommy (Chaplain) on Jul 20, 2003 at 00:50 UTC
Do you prefer GD to Image::Magick? -- Tommy Butler, a.k.a. TOMMY	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Image::Magick "geometry" argument? by Dog and Pony (Priest) on Jul 20, 2003 at 00:57 UTC
Actually, I like ImageMagick (the tool itself) very much, it is very powerful, and with plugins like GhostScript even more so. I just didn't like the Perl interface. Mind you, it was quite some time ago I tried it last. It might have grown better. I haven't used GD much, but I've seen what others do with it, and that is likewise a very good package from what I can see. What one uses is probably mostly a matter of what is appropriate for the task at hand and what one likes. Though I think that GD is more for creating images, while ImageMagick is more suited to manipulating existing images. That is, if you want to produce charts, graphs or anything like that, GD is probably much better. If you want to create thumbnails for a huge photoalbum, then ImageMagick sure is a great tool (and here I don't know about GD). You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.	[reply]