Text only | Text with Images

coppermine-gallery.com/forum

Support => cpg1.4.x Support => Older/other versions => cpg1.4 install => Topic started by: Mikaelft on September 13, 2008, 01:28:23 AM

Title: GD 2.X versus Image Magick
Post by: Mikaelft on September 13, 2008, 01:28:23 AM
What's best of GD 2.X and image Magick?
Title: Re: GD 2.X versus Image Magick
Post by: Fabricio Ferrero on September 13, 2008, 09:45:49 PM
You are asking for an opinion, not support. There is a forum for this kind of questions.

General discussion (no support!)  (http://forum.coppermine-gallery.net/index.php/board,12.0.html)
Title: Re: GD 2.X versus Image Magick
Post by: Mikaelft on September 14, 2008, 01:28:31 AM
I was thinking more of memory usage and functions like the gallery need to look best.
Title: Re: GD 2.X versus Image Magick
Post by: Fabricio Ferrero on September 14, 2008, 03:00:43 AM
Just as advice: I would google it in your place to get a detailed answer. And, you could save work to the supporters.  ;)

http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=en&q=GD+vs+ImageMagick&meta= (http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=en&q=GD+vs+ImageMagick&meta=)
Title: Re: GD 2.X versus Image Magick
Post by: Joachim Müller on September 14, 2008, 01:08:59 PM
Quote from: Joachim Müller on September 12, 2008, 09:21:18 AMThe difference between ImageMagick and GD mainly lie in the number of image file types that it supports: ImageMagick can cope with a number of files that GD can't cope with. However, those image file types are nearly irrelevant on web pages. Both GD2 as well as ImageMagick can cope with jpeg, png and gif, which are the most important image file types on the internet. The additional file types that ImageMagick can cope with (like tif or bmp) result in much bigger file sizes, so they usually are not an option on the web.
Text only | Text with Images