Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )
This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),
Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
On 10/2/14, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
This is live now. First results look promising, however some images don't seem to be working
*Really big images (>350 megapixels) seem to run into a timeout (especially lzw compressed images, but that could be a coincidence, very small sample size) *https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carr_wilbur_j_honorable.tif and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelia_earhart_received_by_president... are broken. Not sure what the deal with those two are yet. They do not appear broken (locally anyways) if converting directly instead of using intermediary step. Random theory is something to do with colour profiles as they're both greyscale images, but needs further investigation.
Since no one else has done so yet, I just want to give a big thanks to Brian for working on this. This is a problem that has especially plagued big GLAM content contributions with high-resolution scans, and it's great to see those finally rendered. Your work is appreciated!
Dominic
On 2 October 2014 21:08, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/14, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
This is live now. First results look promising, however some images don't seem to be working
*Really big images (>350 megapixels) seem to run into a timeout (especially lzw compressed images, but that could be a coincidence, very small sample size) *https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carr_wilbur_j_honorable.tif and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelia_earhart_received_by_president... are broken. Not sure what the deal with those two are yet. They do not appear broken (locally anyways) if converting directly instead of using intermediary step. Random theory is something to do with colour profiles as they're both greyscale images, but needs further investigation.
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
ditto!
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.com wrote:
Since no one else has done so yet, I just want to give a big thanks to Brian for working on this. This is a problem that has especially plagued big GLAM content contributions with high-resolution scans, and it's great to see those finally rendered. Your work is appreciated!
Dominic
On 2 October 2014 21:08, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/14, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
This is live now. First results look promising, however some images don't seem to be working
*Really big images (>350 megapixels) seem to run into a timeout (especially lzw compressed images, but that could be a coincidence, very small sample size) *https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carr_wilbur_j_honorable.tif and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amelia_earhart_received_by_president... are broken. Not sure what the deal with those two are yet. They do not appear broken (locally anyways) if converting directly instead of using intermediary step. Random theory is something to do with colour profiles as they're both greyscale images, but needs further investigation.
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Dominic McDevitt-Parks, 03/10/2014 20:30:
Since no one else has done so yet, I just want to give a big thanks to Brian for working on this. This is a problem that has especially plagued big GLAM content contributions with high-resolution scans, and it's great to see those finally rendered. Your work is appreciated!
Just today I uploaded some TIFF files from BEIC and I was spared nasty conversions thanks to our TIFF support, so I can't agree more!
Nemo
Hi Brian,
Thanks for taking this on.
I've put some comments up in response to your post at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Experimenting_with_u...
The short version is that many of these big files are maps or engravings, and really need an anti-aliassing filter (eg a Lanczos filter) when they are reduced, otherwise we get nasty "jaggies" and other aliassing artefacts.
Unfortunately, it seems that VIPS does not do any anti-aliassing (and nor does the Image Magick 'thumbnail' option we currently use).
It's a shame when we have very good high-resolution originals, to be presenting downsized versions which look so poor.
For comparison, I have put up copies of a couple of the images rescaled to 1280px using Image Magick's "resize" command, to show what potentially can be achievable at this resolution, if we allow a few more clock cycles.
All best,
James.
On 02/10/2014 22:57, Brian Wolff wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Hi James, thanks for the feedback, its exactly the type of feedback i was looking for.
I did see your comments on the vp earlier. I hadn't responded because i wanted to do a little research first to better understand what filters do, and what our options are in the various tools we use (i'm definitely not an expert on image manipulation or signal processing, more just gluing together pieces other people have made. However learning about this stuff has been quite interesting)
So at first glance:
Our needs are: *resize images relatively quickly (resizing done on demand at the moment for first request. If it takes over a minute, that is very bad) *resize images in under 512mb
Vips has some interpolation options. In my testing they did not seem to give very good results. We are probably going to need to use vips for big files in order to meet the above listed needs. In the current system we make an intermediary thumbnail ~2048px, and then shrink further from that. We could perhaps explore using fancier algorithms on the second step.
Ill respond more fully at VP, when i have a more firm grip on the different options we can take.
--bawolff On Oct 4, 2014 5:55 AM, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for taking this on.
I've put some comments up in response to your post at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Experimenting_with_u...
The short version is that many of these big files are maps or engravings,
and really need an anti-aliassing filter (eg a Lanczos filter) when they are reduced, otherwise we get nasty "jaggies" and other aliassing artefacts.
Unfortunately, it seems that VIPS does not do any anti-aliassing (and nor
does the Image Magick 'thumbnail' option we currently use).
It's a shame when we have very good high-resolution originals, to be
presenting downsized versions which look so poor.
For comparison, I have put up copies of a couple of the images rescaled
to 1280px using Image Magick's "resize" command, to show what potentially can be achievable at this resolution, if we allow a few more clock cycles.
All best,
James.
On 02/10/2014 22:57, Brian Wolff wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Thanks Brian,
I just want to say, I really do appreciate the trouble you're taking over this.
For me as a user/uploader, what I find most frustrating is if we've found a really good high-resolution copy of an image (or perhaps worked really hard to clean it up), only to find that after treatment through WP's scalers, it ends up looking significantly worse than the first low-res image.
(I also don't understand why we get jaggies on SVG images, but that may be a separate issue).
Part of the trouble is that we've got used to using an extremely low-quality Image Magick option designed for throwaway thumbnails, and instead we're using it for what ought to be the best production-quality reference images that we serve at each resolution.
If you're telling me this is how it has to be, then I suppose we have to live with that. But it's not really good enough.
But with these really big images, which typically aren't accessed particularly often, I don't see why it's not at least possible to produce best-quality rescalings at 2048px, running when server resources allow, but not compromising on the quality, and then simply store them -- they only need to be generated once, so surely it makes sense to get them right.
(I suspect it probably gives better results to generate the 2048px in best quality, and then generate lower-res images from that as required cutting whatever corners necessary; rather than baking artefacts in at 2048px, because I doubt they would get unbaked after that, however good the algorithms used).
As for the memory issue, surely there must be low-memory implementations even of the best filters? A Lanczos filter falls off pretty rapidly with distance, so it must be possible to produce a finite-length near equivalent, and then process the image as overlapping tiles. Even if the algorithm is using an FFT for the filtering, it can surely do it on only part of the image at a time (if needs be).
In terms of timing, as I understand it from previous threads from Fae, at the moment downsized versions are automatically requested as soon as the image is uploaded -- which means GWToolset can bring Commons to its knees if not properly throttled. But surely this could be modified so that the initial reduced-sizing is only generated when resources are available, unless a user has requested it. (Or alternatively, a quick-but-nasty resizing could be generated initially, with improved resizing queued to be generated when resources permit).
But thanks again for all your work on this,
All best,
James.
On 04/10/2014 14:14, Brian Wolff wrote:
Hi James, thanks for the feedback, its exactly the type of feedback i was looking for.
I did see your comments on the vp earlier. I hadn't responded because i wanted to do a little research first to better understand what filters do, and what our options are in the various tools we use (i'm definitely not an expert on image manipulation or signal processing, more just gluing together pieces other people have made. However learning about this stuff has been quite interesting)
So at first glance:
Our needs are: *resize images relatively quickly (resizing done on demand at the moment for first request. If it takes over a minute, that is very bad) *resize images in under 512mb
Vips has some interpolation options. In my testing they did not seem to give very good results. We are probably going to need to use vips for big files in order to meet the above listed needs. In the current system we make an intermediary thumbnail ~2048px, and then shrink further from that. We could perhaps explore using fancier algorithms on the second step.
Ill respond more fully at VP, when i have a more firm grip on the different options we can take.
--bawolff On Oct 4, 2014 5:55 AM, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for taking this on.
I've put some comments up in response to your post at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Experimenting_with_u...
The short version is that many of these big files are maps or engravings,
and really need an anti-aliassing filter (eg a Lanczos filter) when they are reduced, otherwise we get nasty "jaggies" and other aliassing artefacts.
Unfortunately, it seems that VIPS does not do any anti-aliassing (and nor
does the Image Magick 'thumbnail' option we currently use).
It's a shame when we have very good high-resolution originals, to be
presenting downsized versions which look so poor.
For comparison, I have put up copies of a couple of the images rescaled
to 1280px using Image Magick's "resize" command, to show what potentially can be achievable at this resolution, if we allow a few more clock cycles.
All best,
James.On 02/10/2014 22:57, Brian Wolff wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Incidentally, some speed-ups can be obtained in ImageMagick by using the 'clone' command appropriately, duplicating the image in memory, (and then appropriate 'delete's when done with it), rather than repeated 'convert' commands, which re-load it again from disk each time.
See eg the answer #2, by Mark Setchell, in this thread
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25995030/image-magick-resize-on-server-si...
... but I suspect you guys know all this already, and this is advice to my elders and betters as to how to suck eggs. :-)
- JH.
On 05/10/2014 23:35, James Heald wrote:
Thanks Brian,
I just want to say, I really do appreciate the trouble you're taking over this.
For me as a user/uploader, what I find most frustrating is if we've found a really good high-resolution copy of an image (or perhaps worked really hard to clean it up), only to find that after treatment through WP's scalers, it ends up looking significantly worse than the first low-res image.
(I also don't understand why we get jaggies on SVG images, but that may be a separate issue).
Part of the trouble is that we've got used to using an extremely low-quality Image Magick option designed for throwaway thumbnails, and instead we're using it for what ought to be the best production-quality reference images that we serve at each resolution.
If you're telling me this is how it has to be, then I suppose we have to live with that. But it's not really good enough.
But with these really big images, which typically aren't accessed particularly often, I don't see why it's not at least possible to produce best-quality rescalings at 2048px, running when server resources allow, but not compromising on the quality, and then simply store them -- they only need to be generated once, so surely it makes sense to get them right.
(I suspect it probably gives better results to generate the 2048px in best quality, and then generate lower-res images from that as required cutting whatever corners necessary; rather than baking artefacts in at 2048px, because I doubt they would get unbaked after that, however good the algorithms used).
As for the memory issue, surely there must be low-memory implementations even of the best filters? A Lanczos filter falls off pretty rapidly with distance, so it must be possible to produce a finite-length near equivalent, and then process the image as overlapping tiles. Even if the algorithm is using an FFT for the filtering, it can surely do it on only part of the image at a time (if needs be).
In terms of timing, as I understand it from previous threads from Fae, at the moment downsized versions are automatically requested as soon as the image is uploaded -- which means GWToolset can bring Commons to its knees if not properly throttled. But surely this could be modified so that the initial reduced-sizing is only generated when resources are available, unless a user has requested it. (Or alternatively, a quick-but-nasty resizing could be generated initially, with improved resizing queued to be generated when resources permit).
But thanks again for all your work on this,
All best,
James.
On 04/10/2014 14:14, Brian Wolff wrote:
Hi James, thanks for the feedback, its exactly the type of feedback i was looking for.
I did see your comments on the vp earlier. I hadn't responded because i wanted to do a little research first to better understand what filters do, and what our options are in the various tools we use (i'm definitely not an expert on image manipulation or signal processing, more just gluing together pieces other people have made. However learning about this stuff has been quite interesting)
So at first glance:
Our needs are: *resize images relatively quickly (resizing done on demand at the moment for first request. If it takes over a minute, that is very bad) *resize images in under 512mb
Vips has some interpolation options. In my testing they did not seem to give very good results. We are probably going to need to use vips for big files in order to meet the above listed needs. In the current system we make an intermediary thumbnail ~2048px, and then shrink further from that. We could perhaps explore using fancier algorithms on the second step.
Ill respond more fully at VP, when i have a more firm grip on the different options we can take.
--bawolff On Oct 4, 2014 5:55 AM, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for taking this on.
I've put some comments up in response to your post at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Experimenting_with_u...
The short version is that many of these big files are maps or engravings,
and really need an anti-aliassing filter (eg a Lanczos filter) when they are reduced, otherwise we get nasty "jaggies" and other aliassing artefacts.
Unfortunately, it seems that VIPS does not do any anti-aliassing (and nor
does the Image Magick 'thumbnail' option we currently use).
It's a shame when we have very good high-resolution originals, to be
presenting downsized versions which look so poor.
For comparison, I have put up copies of a couple of the images rescaled
to 1280px using Image Magick's "resize" command, to show what potentially can be achievable at this resolution, if we allow a few more clock cycles.
All best,
James.On 02/10/2014 22:57, Brian Wolff wrote:
Hi everyone.
tl;dr: Can we do https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476
Now that the pre-requisite patches for using VIPS with tiff has been merged (Woo!), lets umm use it.
So for those who don't know what vips is, vips is an alternative to image magick which can scale certain file formats in essentially constant memory (Or probably to be pedantic, linear in the number of pixels in the resulting file, instead of linear in the number of pixels in the source). This means we would be able to make thumbnails no matter how big the source file is. Which is good because we have lots of very high resolution tiff files, such as [[File:Zoomit2.tif]] and [[File:Zentralbibliothek Zürich - Mittelalterliche Stadt - 000005203.tif]]. We already use VIPS to scale png files larger than 20 megapixels, and non-progressive jpeg files can be scaled efficiently with image magick, so tiff is the current pain point in terms of scaling limits (although GIF is also painful).
I would like to propose the following:
First we experiment with turning it on for files > 50 megapixels. Currently we do not even try to render such files, so I doubt this will cause any community angst. To that end I proposed a patch ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/164476 ) that uses the following settings:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, 'minArea' => 5e7, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), )This will turn the feature on for big files (which currently do not render), and also enable sharpening (Most tiff images benefit from it and the community has asked for it repeatedly, I think its less disruptive to enable sharpening at the same time as VIPS, instead of two separate changes to tiff rendering).
I would propose we let that sit for a little bit. We should than have a community discussion (With the commons community, since its hard to have a discussion with every community, and commons (+esp. Glams) are the people who care the most about this) to see if the community likes that. Hopefully if all is well we could move to stage 2, which would be something like:
array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', 'minShrinkFactor' => 1.2, ), 'sharpen' => array( 'sigma' => 0.8 ), ), array( 'conditions' => array( 'mimeType' => 'image/tiff', ), ),Anyways, thoughts. Does this sound like a good plan? Someone want to be bold and deploy my change ;)
--bawolff
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
Multimedia mailing list Multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia
multimedia@lists.wikimedia.org