Anthony Thyssen scripsit: > Mikolaj Machowski on wrote... >| Hello, >| >| Anthony on his incomparable pages writes very much about increasing size >| of image and how to get the best results but relatively little about >| decreasing size. >| >| What is the best way(s) to achieve that? >| > Actually I write about both on the resize page.
But concentrating more on time of operation, not quality (apart from very specific examples like lines). > However for heavy resizing smaller, there is a seperate page. > IM Examples, thumbnails > http://imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/ Not really relevant to my case :( My images aren't thumbnails per se (eg. I want to preserve whole metadata), also because original format is tiff -size doesn't apply. All additional eye-candy also is irrelevant - although maybe for use for preparing CD/DVD covers. >| To get decent results when doing transition from 4000x4000 tiff to >| 1000x1000 jpg I am doing something like that: >| >| convert pic.tiff -depth 8 -density 72 -resize 1000x1000 -filter lanczos >| -unsharp 1x1+0.6 -sampling-factor 1x1 -quality 90 pic.jpg >| >| If I want better result I can make it in two or three steps and >| manipulation unsharp mask. Any ideas how to do it better? >| > The -depth would do nothing in the above command. Not in my case. When working with Q16 it shaves off 10-15% of execution time per image. > while -density only sets the image density for the output image, > so probably should be given at the end with -sampling-factor. Thanks. > The -filter setting however must be specified BEFORE the -resize > command!!! It is also the default for image shrinking when no > transparency is involved, so it is not even needed!!! I prefer explicit :) Thanks for placing tip. m. _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
