Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest kilbad

What file format do you recommend for thumbnails? Why?

Recommended Posts

Guest kilbad
SOLVED:: regarding thumbnail quality

I used imagemagick for the first time with a gallery script I wrote for my site.  I used it to generate jpeg thumbnails at 100% quality, of both small and medium size (see http://kilbad.com/index.php?id=photos&album=9.24.06.heartwalk&page=1 ).  I feel like the thumbnail quality is terrible.  Does anyone have any recommendations for improving this? 

Would another file type be better?  Or are there some additional imagemagick convert command parameters I should be using? 

Just fyi, the reason I am using imagemagick is so I can batch convert all the images with the php gallery script without doing so manually.


Also, any other feedback about the gallery script, or my site in general, is greatly appreciated!

Thanks so much!
Brendan


[b]FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:: What file format do you recommend for thumbnails?  Why?[/b]


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why not just use the gd library? That is how I resize images for my gallery.  I set up a script that will search a directory for any image files, and reset them to whatever size I want in a loop.  Large directories take a little while to execute this way, but it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kilbad
The server I am on has Image Magick and NetPBM, so that is what I am using, and it works for me.  However, I do want to know if there is a way to improve the resulting thumbnails?  The current command line I am using is:

convert *.jpg -resize x250 -quality 100 small_thumbnail.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kilbad
[b]FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:: What file format do you recommend for thumbnails?  Why?[/b]

I have read a few articles on the issue, but am still not clear as to whether jpg or png is the right choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
format: jpg or png
why: much better color pallette and resolution, especially if you're using the GDlib to create them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed with obsidian, although the support in IE for PNGs is a bit rubbish. JPG would be the safest bet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=redbullmarky link=topic=109724.msg443132#msg443132 date=1159456515]
agreed with obsidian, although the support in IE for PNGs is a bit rubbish. JPG would be the safest bet
[/quote]

Well, the only real problem is if the PNG has transparencies. In which case, it'll replace the transparent area with some specific color that I can't recall. (I think it's white, but I'm not sure.) They say that IE 7 is going to fully support PNG, transparencies and all, but I have yet to try it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=neylitalo link=topic=109724.msg443134#msg443134 date=1159456969]
[quote author=redbullmarky link=topic=109724.msg443132#msg443132 date=1159456515]
agreed with obsidian, although the support in IE for PNGs is a bit rubbish. JPG would be the safest bet
[/quote]

Well, the only real problem is if the PNG has transparencies. In which case, it'll replace the transparent area with some specific color that I can't recall. (I think it's white, but I'm not sure.) They say that IE 7 is going to fully support PNG, transparencies and all, but I have yet to try it out.
[/quote]

indeed, IE7 does a [b]much[/b] better job with transparencies on png files

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.