Interesting. Went back and did another test. Source image from NASA's APotD: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/STS134VAB_cooper.jpg
ImageXXX() thumbs: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/thumb_STS134VAB_cooper.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/thumbM_STS134VAB_cooper.jpg <cfimage> thumbs: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/thumb_STS134VAB_cooper2.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/thumbM_STS134VAB_cooper2.jpg Looking closer, the <cfimage> image result is one pixel taller than the ImageXXX() code. I use the auto-calculated dimension feature for the ImageXXX() function: ImageResize(imgData, gcPhotoThumbWm) (gcPhotoThumbWm = 400, set in a defs file) <cfimage> requires both parameters, so I calculate that out: <cfset intH = round(gcPhotoThumbWm/ cfimage.width * cfimage.height)> <cfimage action = "EDIT" srcfile = "#argSource#" destfile = "#argTarget#" width = "#gcPhotoThumbW#" height = "#intH#" type = "JPEG" > Hmm. I just did another test using the same calculated dimension value, and while closer, the CFIMAGE tag still results in a file that is smaller and has less "noise"; the ImageXXX() edges look sharper. https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/cfimage_STS134VAB_cooper.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/fg_stuff/imagexxx_STS134VAB_cooper.jpg Mostly aesthetics here, but I'd have to start digging through the source's implementation to see why they differ, and I don't think it really matters in the long run :D -- official tag/function reference: http://openbd.org/manual/ mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
