I'll just start by saying how much effort I went to getting the ImageMagick PECL Extension installed on my VPS so that I could have animated avatars and improved image shenanigans. To be honest I probably spent about 2 days hunting through various guides until I got a hodge podge method that worked for me. After all that effort do you know what I've discovered? Animated avatars on XenForo just look wrong, I tried out a few different one and they just look wrong. So failing the avatars apparently ImageMagick PECL Extension is supposed to work with a larger range of images and improve upon the PHP built-in GD image library. Thing is though it's worse, images take longer to process when they're uploaded and I find a higher proportion of images fail to process, the failure rate is maybe only 1 in 100 but it's a lot more than with GD. Today I've now formally switched back to PHP built-in GD image library and if you want to some advise from me, don't bother with ImageMagick.
heh heh heh. I always found animated avatars distracting anyway. What is neat though (and is something I discovered when I was using my Halloween avatar) was that your avatar is static within threads, but if you go to your profile, the animation will run there
Imagick is always my choice. And I don't bother with animated avatars on my sites. Imagick can generate higher quality thumbnails, at a better memory usage rate, and do it faster than GD. And Imagick applies the sharpening filter a lot faster than GD. An image after the GD sharpening filter - And the same image after the Imagick sharpening filter - To each their own, but Imagick dances circles around GD for me.
Mike54 - On my site (can't comment on anyone elses) Imagemagick is significantly slower than GD. I've never tested image quality but will do so using your image above
Tested here http://www.the-sps.org/threads/image-quality.23292/ No difference that I can see. Are there any other benefits to Imagemagick then?
Real world there is no difference. I think you have read the results wrong. There are 4 images in two rows of two. The first image in each row is the image as normally processed via the respective library. You can view the results directly yourself at www.the-sps.org/image/index.php
I made no mistake. I merely posted the single set of images, rather than posting all four. The bottom line to this is I have found more positive results with Imagick and choose to use it, rather than GD. For me, it's faster and the images are cleaner. I can (and do) see the difference between the two. And I disagree with the idea it is more trouble than it's worth. <shrug> If you are seeing different results, I've no argument with that. That's why there are choices we can all make for ourselves, aye?
I think you were a little more devious than that, I was giving you benefit of doubt I took issue with your evidence is all, it was misleading at best
Just wanted to mention, the reason they chose the PECL method is due to a method of DDoS that is possible with ImageMagick.
My sincere apologies, as it was certainly not my intent to mislead anyone. Actually, my sincere apologies for getting involved myself in this thread at all. I'll chalk this one up as a lesson learned. <heads off to self-flagellate>
Didn't mention anyone getting DDoS'd, only that is the reasoning behind their choice in PECL rather than the traditional ImageMagick implementation. I much prefer that they take into consideration possible attack vectors (Major ones as ImageMagick is very easily exploited) while they develop the platform. It might not be convenient, but when you get a DDoS on average 4-5 times a week, you certainly appreciate the care they've put into the software.
It's not something that I've run into yet, certainly I hope I never do anyway. Thank you for your advice.
