[Zope] Photo and ZPhotoAlbum 0.4.3 beta

Andrew Lahser andrew@apl-software.com
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:43:14 -0500


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01BF6F61.3903E290
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

With respect to the Zope Photo product, thank all of you for your =
suggestions and bug reports. All of your suggestions, including =
customizable default displays, are now part of the Photo and ZPhotoAlbum =
product. You can find the latest beta version at =
http://www.zope.org/Member/Drew/Photo. Also, I now have ZPhotoAlbum =
working on a production site. http://www.jpdesserts.com. As always, I =
welcome your further suggestions.

Just before this last release, I did some experimentation with PIL vs. =
other open source image manipulation tools. PIL seems to have two =
negative effects when resizing. First, moire artifacts are subtle, but =
apparent. Second, the scan that PIL does introduces some blur, as do all =
scaling tools, but PIL does a lackluster job of applying a sharpening =
filter after a resize. The net effect is that images resized by the =
Photo product are not nearly as good as those done by Imagemagick. =
Additionally, Imagemagick has several features that would be nice to =
include with Photo, but would not be available with PIL. Foremost is =
support for FlashPix, which several of you have requested. The downside =
is that Imagemagick is slower. Interfacing with Imagemagick would be =
done through the command line, so the PIL libraries would not be needed =
by Photo, but the Imagemagick "convert" program would have to be =
available in the path of the user that runs Zope. The swig and native =
python interfaces to Imagemagick are a bit immature, and we really only =
need image manipulation during upload, so the command line interface =
won't have too much downside. Moreover, I think Photo would be easier to =
install, because the broken product syndrome that comes with installing =
PIL would not occur. That is a good summary of the issues.

Before converting Photo over to Imagemagick, I want to get your input. I =
see much more positive than negative, but I want to be sure that I have =
the whole picture.

The upside of all of this is that I now know more about online digital =
imagery than I ever wanted to know. I want to put the ZPhotoAlbum =
product behind me, but I also want the highest quality for my websites. =
Your opinion really matters, so please take a minute and send me your =
impressions. Thanks for your support.

"Drew"
andrew@apl-software.com

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01BF6F61.3903E290
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>With respect to the Zope Photo product, =
thank all=20
of you for your suggestions and bug reports. All of your suggestions, =
including=20
customizable default displays, are now part of the Photo and ZPhotoAlbum =

product. You can find the latest beta version at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.zope.org/Member/Drew/Photo">http://www.zope.org/Member=
/Drew/Photo</A>.=20
Also, I now have ZPhotoAlbum working on a production site. <A=20
href=3D"http://www.jpdesserts.com">http://www.jpdesserts.com</A>. As =
always, I=20
welcome your further suggestions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Just before this last release, I did =
some=20
experimentation with PIL vs. other open source image manipulation tools. =
PIL=20
seems to have two negative effects when resizing. First, moire artifacts =
are=20
subtle, but apparent. Second, the scan that PIL does introduces some =
blur, as do=20
all scaling tools, but PIL does a lackluster job of applying a =
sharpening filter=20
after a resize. The net effect is that images resized by the Photo =
product are=20
not nearly as good as those done by Imagemagick. Additionally, =
Imagemagick has=20
several features that would be nice to include with Photo, but would not =
be=20
available with PIL. Foremost is support for FlashPix, which several of =
you have=20
requested. The downside is that Imagemagick is slower. Interfacing with=20
Imagemagick would be done through the command line, so the PIL libraries =
would=20
not be needed by Photo, but the Imagemagick "convert" program would have =
to be=20
available in the path of the user that runs Zope. The swig and native =
python=20
interfaces to Imagemagick are a bit immature, and we really only need =
image=20
manipulation during upload, so the command line interface won't have too =
much=20
downside. Moreover, I think Photo would be easier to install, because =
the broken=20
product syndrome that comes with installing PIL would not occur. That is =
a good=20
summary of the issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Before converting Photo over to =
Imagemagick, I want=20
to get your input. I see much more positive than negative, but I want to =
be sure=20
that I have the whole picture.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The upside of all of this is that I now =
know more=20
about online digital imagery than I ever wanted to know. I want to put =
the=20
ZPhotoAlbum product behind me, but I also want the highest quality for =
my=20
websites. Your opinion really matters, so please take a minute and send =
me your=20
impressions. Thanks for your support.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Drew"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:andrew@apl-software.com">andrew@apl-software.com</A></FONT=
></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01BF6F61.3903E290--