4 ms·
Good, detailed post. I just did about 250K images using ImageMagick and a shell script. It was across 3 boxes and I noticed quite a performance difference betwe
by callmeed 16y ago
Good, detailed post. I just did about 250K images using ImageMagick and a shell script. It was across 3 boxes and I noticed quite a performance difference between an older and newer version of IM. It could have been another factor, I suppose.
One thing I'm skeptical about:
"We found out, almost by accident, that using the previously down-sized “large” images resulted in better quality and faster processing than starting with the original full-size images."
Obviously, the processing speed will be faster with a down-sized image, but I can't see how starting with a smaller image will give you better quality. Unless the original image was so large that downsizing caused a lot of detail loss (in which case the image should have been sharpened).
- liuliu 16y agoIf you use a wrong algorithm, that can be a case. For example, when you use bilinear interpolation to "down-size" image, for large image, you can end up interpolating between two far away pixels whereas if you use a smaller image, the two pixels you use are already averaged (interpolated), thus, can get a more pleasing result.