Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-29 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 27Mar2010 19:44, Stephen Hansen wrote: | Yeah, I don't expect much from PNG. The images are very small but I | might be sending a LOT of them over a pipe which is fairly tight, so | 50-60 bytes matters. That's why I selected GIF. How well does a stream of XPM files compress? Probably not enoug

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-29 Thread Gabriel Genellina
En Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:41:23 -0300, Gregory Ewing escribió: Stephen Hansen wrote: So I wonder if there's just some hyper-optimization Photoshop does that PIL can't round-trip. You may find that PIL isn't bothering to compress at all, or only doing it in a very simpleminded way. Indeed. F

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-29 Thread Gregory Ewing
Stephen Hansen wrote: So I wonder if there's just some hyper-optimization Photoshop does that PIL can't round-trip. You may find that PIL isn't bothering to compress at all, or only doing it in a very simpleminded way. -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-28 Thread garabik-news-2005-05
Harishankar wrote: > >> Just opening, and then saving the same file with no changes at all, >> resulted in a 72 byte file growing to 920. >> >> I thought it was GIF87a vs GIF89a... but have since come to determine it >> doesn't appear to be. I decided to give PNG a try again, since those >> extr

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-27 Thread Chris Colbert
since the images only use a couple colors each, just run length encode it. Depending on the image, you may be able to get a super small size that way, and avoid the whole mess. On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Harishankar wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:44:54 -0700, Stephen Hansen wrote: > > > O

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-27 Thread Harishankar
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:44:54 -0700, Stephen Hansen wrote: > On 2010-03-27 08:17:46 -0700, Alain Ketterlin said: > >> Stephen Hansen writes: > >>> If not, are there any decent other image libraries out there that >>> anyone's familiar with? The only one I could find was PythonMagick, >>> which s

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-27 Thread Stephen Hansen
On 2010-03-27 08:17:46 -0700, Alain Ketterlin said: Stephen Hansen writes: If not, are there any decent other image libraries out there that anyone's familiar with? The only one I could find was PythonMagick, which seems completely undocumented. Or I'm blind. I don't know PythonMagick, but

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-27 Thread Alain Ketterlin
Stephen Hansen writes: > Is it possible to get PIL to save GIF's in GIF89A format, instead of > GIF87A? GIF89 was patented. I guess that is why it isn't used by PIL. (The patent has expired now, IIRC.) Anyway, PNG was supposed to replace GIF. > If not, are there any decent other image libraries

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-26 Thread Stephen Hansen
On 2010-03-26 21:37:10 -0700, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said: In message <2010032618455468300-aptshan...@gmailinvalid>, Stephen Hansen wrote: Is it possible to get PIL to save GIF's in GIF89A format, instead of GIF87A? Why? What does GIF do for you that PNG doesn’t? If I take this PSD and save i

Re: GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-26 Thread Lawrence D'Oliveiro
In message <2010032618455468300-aptshan...@gmailinvalid>, Stephen Hansen wrote: > Is it possible to get PIL to save GIF's in GIF89A format, instead of > GIF87A? Why? What does GIF do for you that PNG doesn’t? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

GIF89A and PIL

2010-03-26 Thread Stephen Hansen
Hi, all. Is it possible to get PIL to save GIF's in GIF89A format, instead of GIF87A? If not, are there any decent other image libraries out there that anyone's familiar with? The only one I could find was PythonMagick, which seems completely undocumented. Or I'm blind. Ahem. But the proble