Rick Root wrote: >Andy Matthews wrote: > > >>Rick... >> >>SMALL >>Nearest: 5,580 >>Bicubic: 5,566 >>Explicit: 28,309 >> >>So while the final image looks better, it's because less image data is being >>thrown away. The best test would be to get the quality of image generated by >>the explicit code as close as possible to the other two then check for file >>size. >> >> > >Yeah I noticed that too. The optimum compression for the small images >seems to be somewhere between 0.8 and 1.0 ... 0.8 creates a file about >5.5k .. 0.9 creates a file about 9k, and 1.0 creates the 28k file. > >The 9k image was definately better than the 5k image but still not as >good as the 28k image.. obviously... > >So I'll keep playing with it and probably the image cfc will end up >having some kind of compression options. > >Curiously, when I change the compression and re-run the script, the file >size doesn't change unless I actually delete the file first. It's like >java is writing new data to the existing file but leaving the the file >the same size, even if it doesn't require as much space. > >rick > > > I would be extremely interested to see how this stacks up against the GD libraries that PHP and Perl use. So far, we've been forced to use a combination of CFEXECUTE and command-line PHP in order to generate thumbnails that are acceptable for high-end e-commerce sites. If you came up with a BSD-licensed custom tag that you could pass on compression parameters to, many many development companies would be very much in your debt.
-- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230865 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
