A follow up to many notes and suggestions from J Esteves:
On-the-fly resizing could be interesting: ... <img src="http:/somesite/img/.../picture.jpg?width=300" ... /> ... when one needs to show picture.jpg in a new size with width of 300 pixels or .../picture.jpg?width=480&height=480 to limite the larger size to 480 pixels. ... It could also be nice to allow rescaling (relatively to the original size) with something like
.../picture.jpg?scale=1.56
I like these ideas. All of these are now on my todo list.
It could also be useful to allow customization of the cookie name
Added to my todo list.
An interesting exception would be to set the display cookie ALSO when display=='', thus activating "natural size" viewing
Added to my list.
Ideally, the `tag' method should respect alt=='' (since sometimes one really wants that):
True. Also, added to my list.
It would be interesting to have public methods providing that information (height() and width()
On my todo list.
Unfortunately, I had no time to determine the precise equation used by ImageMagick to calculate new sizes maintaining aspect ratio.
Based on the lengthy discussion of this issue, and since I didn't get any negative responses, I'll incorporate the algorithm you provided. Thanks!
Image quality with PIL:
I noticed that in the version of PIL I have here, 1.1.2, the resize method has an optional filter argument which can be "NEAREST, BILINEAR, or BICUBIC. If omitted, it defaults to NEAREST." I have no time for careful testing now (and Image Magick is working very well), but noticed that `resize' is being without specifying the filter, thus using NEAREST and not taking full advantage of PIL capabilities.
In a nutshell, resized image quality with PIL stinks. I and many others have done countless tests with all three settings of PIL. Not one of my tests produced a noticeable difference in any photo, so I didn't bother adding anything fancy in Photo to try to make the images better. I've tried dozens of things suggested on the PIL forums, and nothing produced images better than the plain ol' resize. Clearly, IM is much better than PIL at this task, so I recommend it be used when available. If you haven't already, take a look at http://www.bickersfamily.org/Photos/PILvsIM/ Thanks again for your input! _______________________ Ron Bickers Logic Etc, Inc.