On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Ausum wrote:
On the other hand I'd like to point out that PIL - although it's a familiar Python native library to work with- has serious lacks of image quality after resampling. The jaggy look of thumbnails is unpleasant for a professional site. Why is that? I've tested the three available methods (nearest, bilinear and bicubic), with a large-size image (2000 X 1500 or so) finding that at a thumbnail level all the samples looked the same. And bicubic is the best known (and costly) resample method. A search at the Image-sig archives also reveals the problem, apparently leading to the use of GIMP with a Python interface -instead of PIL-, when quality becomes a concern.
Has anyone found a workaround for the jaggy look of PIL's resized images in Zope?
Nothing to do with Zope (yet), but I've written a specific web site generator in Python for the online atlas of neurooncology of the ANOCEF with a lot of pictures taken from a slide scanner (Epson filmscan 200) and automatically resized to three different sizes (http://anocef.unice.fr/atlasneuro/) using ImageMagick. This pictures really HAVE to be clean and nice even at thumbnail size, and according to all the professionals and specialists involved they are very good. So maybe you could give a look at ImageMagick, especially the "mogrify" command. I've used it only from os.system, but AFAIK there's a python module for ImageMagick which may produce better results than PIL (untested), it's called PyMagick IIRC. hoping this helps. bye, Jerome Alet - alet@unice.fr - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome Fac de Medecine de Nice http://wwwmed.unice.fr Tel: (+33) 4 93 37 76 30 Fax: (+33) 4 93 53 15 15 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE