In a message dated 5/12/2008 8:26:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was trying to crop an image into multiple images so as to load them in a parallel fashion, (so that the user can start seeing the fragments quicker, when the bandwidth available is low etc, over the internet), as per the topic "Tile Cropping, sub-dividing one image into multiple images" in HYPERLINK "http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/crop/#crop"http://www.imagemagick.org/Usag e/crop/#crop. I used the command : convert -crop 120x120 big_file small_file.jpeg The original file size is 28K, it got cropped into 4 files each of size around 14K, with the result that the total size becomes much more than the original. Is there a way to crop an image into smaller chunks which will be proportionately smaller in size too, as otherwise it defeats my purpose ? (assuming loss of quality can be tolerated ?) Thanks in advance, Sundar Sundar, Chopping up an image into multiple parts for display in a web page has potential for improving perceived loading speed even if the resulting individual part file sizes exceed the original. The idea is to give the visitor a more immediate sense of progress by displaying at least a portion of the overall image more quickly. The alternative, displaying the original image without chopping may result in a delay before any significant portion of the image appears. Your specific example of a 28K image hardly warrants the effort, but there is a chance that much larger file sized images may time out while loading over narrow bandwidth connections. However, that same image displayed in chunks might instead be successfully displayed as a result of each individual part completing more quickly. Although a web browser may initiate the process of loading subsequent images before earlier encountered images have finished, my observational experience is that images are loaded sequentially top to bottom, left to right. The process does not seem to be purely parallel in the sense that you can depend on all the images in the page loading at the same rate of speed (so don't plan based on that). All that said, I don't know how it would be done on the command line, but the individual resulting pieces of the image would need to have assigned to them a higher amount of jpeg compression to produce smaller file sizes. Hopefully others will pitch in with instructions for that. I hope this helps, Rob **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
