On Friday 13 June 2003 18:26, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
> Does anyone know if doing this is a bad idea for some reason?
I've never noticed a problem when I did this for my thumbnails. However, I
noted I didn't use it for the "web sized" photos and your email prompted me
to go back and re-investiage for those larger images: it significantly
speeds it up, and I don't notice any image degredation.
> That part of my photo publishing process is really time consuming
> (well, just for the machine, but I have to wait around for it);
> would be nice to speed it up by a factor of 5+ :)
Indeed! Presently my script (below) is really stupid, but it works. If I
start doing this trick for the "web" photos too, that speeds a "web folder
gallery" generation for this month from 2m44s to 1m28s. Also, it'd be cool
if I detected whether an image has changed and consequently requires
> I wonder what the difference is between -resize and -geometry; I
> have always used -geometry.
This stuff always confused me terribly. I used to use geometry, but in some
ImageMagick release I believe I read that I should be using "size" for what
I was doing.
if [ ! -d ./images ]; then mkdir ./images; fi;
if [ ! -d ./images/thumbs ]; then mkdir ./images/thumbs; fi;
if [ -f .htaccess ]; then
cp .htaccess images/;
echo -e "<Files "*.jpg">\nAllow from all\n</Files>" >