Imagemagick vs. Netpbm

waffull
waffull's picture

Joined: 2002-09-07
Posts: 115
Posted: Sat, 2003-06-07 18:34

This isn't so much a problem as a question...

I have done searches within this site and on the internet and can't find much.

I was wondering if someone could do a comparison of Imagemagick and Netpbm and explain why one might be better than the other.

Thank you,
Marc

http://waffull.com/gallery
 
alindeman
alindeman's picture

Joined: 2002-10-06
Posts: 8194
Posted: Sat, 2003-06-07 18:48

Moving to Chit-Chat...
 
waffull
waffull's picture

Joined: 2002-09-07
Posts: 115
Posted: Sat, 2003-06-07 19:08

Is there a place you can put this where it will get more attention? I think this is an important question as there shouldn't be the need to have both packages installed, taking up valuable hard drive space.

Yet one might require fewer resources, be faster, be higher quality, etc..

Thank you.
Marc
 
joan
joan's picture

Joined: 2002-10-21
Posts: 3473
Posted: Sun, 2003-06-08 05:32

The assumed wisdom seems to be that netpbm installs more reliably, but imagemagick is better software - better compression, faster etc.

Effectlively, I don't think you will notice much of a difference. Chose one, it you get trouble with that, try the other.
 
phil_mundy

Joined: 2003-06-24
Posts: 3
Posted: Tue, 2003-06-24 21:15

I ended up with imagemagick as a side-effect of trying a less successful install of a different gallery suite. The Imagemagick part worked fine, installed first time and worked straight away when I loaded up 'gallery'
Based on that I'm v/happy as I am.