-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Christensen, Courtney wrote:
I know how to check the archives, but I'm not sure
if this would even be
there. What I am really curious about is why it was decided to go with
using ImageMagick to resize images, rather than just changing the width
attribute of the image?
I don't know if you'll find a specific message in the archive, but the
reasoning is pretty much this:
1) Many browsers do really ugly in-browser resizing; a resampled image
usually looks better.
2) Many of our pictures are much larger than comfortable in-browser
thumbnail sizes; a resized image file usually is smaller, so it
downloads faster and saves us bandwidth, and therefore money.
A multi-megapixel digital camera image or high-resolution scan can run
several megabytes, whereas a nice thumbnail might be 70-150 kilobytes.
As for choosing ImageMagick specifically; it was available, free, and
did the job. :) Using a separate process also has advantages in that
failures or out-of-memory conditions can be contained more easily.
- -- brion vibber (brion @
wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFG3ahjwRnhpk1wk44RAovnAJ9rl/aybjYuF0tszcUke9b/tLXg6wCYlM7i
nBHcGV/+fGT3JKaoXpAsXw==
=7J9p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----