> "Quality" is pretty subjective. After reading your messages, I resized
> some images with ImageMagick and the Gimp and I found an interesting
> thing: When I looked at the resized images without zooming, the
> ImageMagick-resized images looked sharper, clearer and showed finer
> detail than the Gimp-resized images, which looked softer and smoother
> (not really blurred, but definitely less detailed). Zoomed in, however,
> the Gimp images looked much better. It appears that the ImageMagick
> algorithm introduced a little pixelization that looks bad up close, but
> not only looks fine at 100%, but even produces some "hints" of lines
> that my eye interprets as fine details. The images I was playing with
> were of people, and the most obvious differences were visible in lines
> in hair, particularly bangs.
> Also, you may want to make sure that you were using the same quality
> settings for the JPEG encoding in your tests. Both Gimp and ImageMagick
> default to a quality setting of 75, I believe, but if you were saving
> your Gimp-resized images with a higher quality setting, that would
> create a false advantage.
> You can use "-quality nn" with ImageMagick, where "nn" is the quality
> setting you want to use.
I definately agree that quality is subjective. I personally think that the
images that I was producing with ImageMagick with good enough for the web.
However, the client that i am doing all this for....does not agree. The quality
that they had been getting with another product was better than the ImageMagick
Images but not as good as the Gimp images. However, it is a manually process
that they want automated.
I have tried using the --quality flag with the imagemagick implementation.
However, It was still not up to the clients standards and the gimp image was
still a cleaner image. Basically, Imagemagick is not an option for us.
Getting this script working from the command line is our best solution at this
Thanks for the information.
Gimp-user mailing list