Re: Poor "scale" results
From: William Kern (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 23 Feb 2008 - 04:11:47 GMT
Next message: Tony Cook: "Re: Poor "scale" results"
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm using Imager to scale basically random pictures (user uploaded
> things) to various small sizes.
> I can never make it look good though! I seem to either have it too
> blurry or too "sharp" -- either way it's losing details.
> I put up some examples at
> The original file:
> With stddev 1.25 and scale 1:
> stddev 1.8 and scale 0.7:
> stddev 1.1 and scale 0.3:
> As a test I scaled the image with Preview.app (too dark, but nice
> and with photoshop (similar filesize to the Imager files), much more
> detail in the asphalt:
> In a blind test my coworkers here preferred the Photoshop version
> (grrh). They tell me to just get over it and use Image-Magick, but
> I've never done that and not regretted having to maintain the
> ImageMagick/PerlMagick installation. :-)
yep. I love the simple Imager install/maintenance.
> My code for doing this below -- anything obvious I'm doing wrong?
> my $data;
> $img->write(data => \$data,
> type => 'jpeg',
> jpegquality => 82,
> or die $img->errstr;
What happens when you leave the jpegquality at a higher level?
Also I have a higher unsharp mask with stddev of 2 and a higher scale of 10.
I am not sure why, we did that years ago when working with a picky
I may have to review those settings.