Szabolcs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/14/08, markus schnalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > gd is _not_ a small lib
but even tough much smaller than ImageMagick. > also gd only does very simple resampling (!= image resize) I'm not an expert, but gd provides image resize and image resample and the quality of the second one is better. You're probably right, that the algorithms that are used are not the best ones, but they are okay for what I need them. As I told: If someone needs high quality resizing, he should use ImageMagick. > imlib2 of enlightment (mentioned earlier) is smaller, faster with > nicer code (at least the simple scaling part) Did I mention, that I work with Debian systems. At least there imlib2 is _not_ smaller than libgd2. (Okay it has more features.) Also imlib2 has more dependencies, under which is x11-common that has just nothing to do with image resizing. > (actually i'd rather use imagemagick than a hack on top of gd) The first needs 80 megabytes (!) of dependencies to download on a fresh base system installation. The second one around 10 megabytes (not messured). imlib2 is somewhere in between, but I dont know where. You are probably right about the speed and code quality of imlib2 and I'll have a look into it. But from my point of view, it seems that gd does a better job for what I want: resize images (with sufficent quality) and have small size and dependencies. anyway: thanks for you arguing! meillo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
