-----Original Message----- From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of Timothy Wilson
Does it run faster or slower than PIL? By about how much?
If I understand the product correctly, the Photo product works by rendering all the various sizes at the time you create the Photo instance. Therefore, once you've created the 'Photo' the program used to create the images should have no bearing on how fast the images appear on your Web site. In other words, Photo doesn't create the thumbnails on the fly.
That's correct. Both engines are too slow for on the fly rendering in most cases, IMO. The engine makes a different in creation speed and image quality, but once the images are created, there's no difference in speed.
In my experience with 1024x768 images, the difference in speed between ImageMagick and PIL is unnoticeable. I've got a pretty fast machine though.
My development machine is a PIII 550 RedHat box, which does show a noticeable difference between the two. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 4 or 5 seconds for PIL to render the default displays on a 330k image, and nearly 20 seconds for ImageMagick. It may vary greatly depending on the image size and complexity. My PIII 1GHz shows much less of a difference in the two, but I can still tell if I count. In any case, I think the creation speed difference of ImageMagick is well worth the better quality. _______________________ Ron Bickers Logic Etc, Inc.