Your original image is 1920x1200 NOT 1900x1200, so when I run your
command manually as
convert 768.jpg -filter Lanczos -quality 50% -resize '1024x768>^' 768_tmp.jpg
I get an image that is 1229x768, which is correct.
I believe your problem may lie in the following misplacement of {}
rather than
'{$browser[1]}x{$browser[2]}>^'
try having the $ outside the {} as
'${browser[1]}x${browser[2]}>^'
Fred
P.S.
Lanczos is the default fo resize reduction, so -filter Lanczos is not
really necessary.
>Hmmm,
>
>Here's my command: convert {$file} -filter Lanczos -quality 50%
>-resize '{$browser[1]}x{$browser[2]}>^' '{$file_generated}' which
>accords with what you've suggested.
>
>My requested image size is 1024x768 and imagemagick is pumping out
>1900x1200 for each image I try. You can play with it dynamically
>here:
>
><http://dev.intelligent>http://dev.intelligent -
><http://creatures.com/backgrounds/get/1097/1024/768>creatures.com/backgrounds/get/1097/1024/768
>
>Remove the " - " in the domain address. The last two slashes
>in the address represent the width and the height. The first one
>after get is just the image ID.
>
>I'm baffled. :-/
>
>Dave
>
>On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Fred Weinhaus
><<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>If you are reducing only and do not care about going over on one side
>or the other then use -resize 'WIDTHxHEIGHT>^`
>
>That will reduce only if the image is larger than WIDTHxHEIGHT and
>will resize according to the images smaller dimension to fit WIDTH or
>HEIGHT. The other dimension will be larger than what you specified by
>WIDTH or HEIGHT.
>
>In your case, your image has an aspect ratio of
>1900/1200=1.58333333333 and WIDTH/HEIGHT=1024/768=1.333333333. So
>your image has a larger w to h aspect ratio than you specify in
>-resize. Thus the smaller dimension will be the height and your image
>will end up with a height of 768. Then the width will be scaled to
>768*1.583=1216. Thus you will have an image result of 1216x768
>
>
>
>>So the question is ... how should I calculate it? Say I have a 1024x768
>>screen and my image is larger (a rectangle of say 1900x1200). I want to
>>avoid letterboxing at all costs. So basically: the new image HAS to fit the
>>minimum dimensions but can go over in height or width, doesn't matter which.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Magick-users mailing list
><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
><http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users>http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
_______________________________________________
Magick-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
