I decided it wasn't fair for me to compare gd and imagemagick when I was calling imagemagick through exec( "convert image.jpg -thumbnail 100x TN_image.jpg" ) so I decided to install the extension for php called imagick.
This had to be installed to PECL, it didn't work on my ubuntu 7.10 by just doing apt-get install php5-imagick.
Nice examples of how to use imagick on Mikko's blog. I couldn't follow his examples though as the version that was installed through PECL didn't have some of the functions he used. Would have been nice to put shadows on my thumbnails though.
Anyways I made the script that creates thumbnails through imagick and compared it to the script in my gallery that uses GD. It seems GD was ahead by just a bit this time, although the quality of the imagick thumbnails were far superior, probably because I had set the GD functions to use less resolution.
GD TEST
From this example the images were really huge (3000x4500 pixels 1.5-2mb), the thumbnails rendered by GD seems pixelated compared to what imagick produced.
IMAGICK TEST
Imagick created 12 thumbnails with very nice quality but was 2 seconds slower than GD.
This had to be installed to PECL, it didn't work on my ubuntu 7.10 by just doing apt-get install php5-imagick.
Nice examples of how to use imagick on Mikko's blog. I couldn't follow his examples though as the version that was installed through PECL didn't have some of the functions he used. Would have been nice to put shadows on my thumbnails though.
Anyways I made the script that creates thumbnails through imagick and compared it to the script in my gallery that uses GD. It seems GD was ahead by just a bit this time, although the quality of the imagick thumbnails were far superior, probably because I had set the GD functions to use less resolution.
GD TEST
From this example the images were really huge (3000x4500 pixels 1.5-2mb), the thumbnails rendered by GD seems pixelated compared to what imagick produced.
IMAGICK TEST
Imagick created 12 thumbnails with very nice quality but was 2 seconds slower than GD.
Powered by ScribeFire.
4 comments:
Interesting results; it made me try some resizing. I just used 3 images I found on my XP machine and I am using XAMPP. All the images came off a digital camera and were 2.8Mb 3.1Mb & 4.7Mb.
First IM took 2.34015679359 seconds to resize and display the thumbs ( using exec() ).
First time through GD failed with "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted". I halved the image sizes first and tried again this time it took 3.3746240139 seconds to resize and display the thumbs.
I think IM was faster in my other test as it had only 3 calls to exec.
If you have more images GD is faster.
It would be interesting to see the Imagick script you used in these tests.
ImageMagick code used ( not Imagick ):
// Setup the maximium width and height for the finished image
$max_width = "200";
$max_height = "90";
// Directory containing the images
$dir = './';
// Sellect all jpg, png and gif images
foreach (glob($dir."{*.jpg,*.JPG,*.gif}",GLOB_BRACE ) as $filename) {
// Get the image size for use in the code
$size=GetImageSize( $filename );
$new_name = $filename;
exec("convert -size {$size[0]}x{$size[1]} $filename -thumbnail $max_widthx$max_height $new_name");
}
Note: I had to remove my echo part of the code as it "cannot be accepted".
Post a Comment