Dennis Daupert on wrote... | I am writing a Gallery application in perl/Catalyst. These are lots of in= | teresting choices to make!=20 | | If any one on this list has engaged in such a mad enterprise, I'd be inte= | rested in your experience. I am interested in any advice, links to how-to= | s, best practices, articles, or tips. I have questions such as: | | What precautions should be taken for security? | What is a good file upload size limit, if any? | What subset of (all possible) file formats should be supported? | What gotchas might there be? | | And I have a few "software architecture" questions. | | I have a central gallery where images would be uploaded to. From there, i= | mages of varying sizes could be linked to articles, stories, eCards, thum= | bnail lists, etc. Because different sizes of the same image might be need= | ed for different uses, I thought I'd generate a whole set of image sizes = | for each uploaded image.=20 | | So, I'd have subdirectories for=20 | _orig original, | _t thumbnails,=20 | _sm small,=20 | _med medium, and=20 | _lrg large file sizes.=20 | | Does this approach seem reasonable?=20 | | If the initial image file is REALLY large (such as a RAW formatted digita= | l image), should I convert that file to a smaller size (say, 1024x768) an= | d save as the "original?" | | Should I convert the original image to a png to reduce lossiness of subse= | quent transformations, even tho that may inflate the initial file size? | yes it sounds very reasonable.
It really doesn't matter what you choose. As long as you stick with that scheme and write your scripts to use that scheme. I talk about this in IM examples, thumbnails http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/ Often the choise of scheme depend on what software you have availabel to handle your images. I myself have not picked any specific software, but instead rely on general image viewers and scripts to generate smaller images and thumbnails for web viewing. The scheme I use reflects this. You are right in that the originals are very large. The only people who should need the originals are people who plan on creating new image uses, and for photo development. Basically any eidt of an original can be bad, so the original should be preserved complete to the original orientation of the picture. A smaller (correctly rotated) version can be generated with comments added, and other EXIF data removed for privacy concerns. this image can be used to then generate a web viewable version (prehaps with watermark protection), at an appropriate size, and smaller 'webpage' includes, and thumbnails for gallery viewing. Don't use the original for any of these things, unless you don't care about someone stealing it. Anthony Thyssen ( System Programmer ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The better the monkeys got at answering those questions, the more baffling the universe became; knowledge increases ignorance. -- Terry Pratchett, "The Science of Diskworld" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony's Home is his Castle http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/ _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
