I'm trying to use the Perl Image::Magick library to use ImageMagick's thumbnail function. Everything I read suggests that ImageMagick preserves aspect ratio when it is given both a width and height, almost functioning more like max-width and max-height in CSS parlance. However, in practice, it seems to be jamming the image into the dimensions I give, disregarding aspect ratio. Am I missing a flag I need to turn on? My impression is that preserving aspect ratio is default behavior.
my $image = Image::Magick->new;
$image->BlobToImage($imageData);
$image->SetAttribute(quality => 80);
$image->SetAttribute(compression => 'JPEG');
$image->Thumbnail(width => $thumbnailWidth, height => $thumbnailHeight);
There are options for comprehensive size manipulation under geometry parameter
scale% Height and width both scaled by specified percentage.
...
width Width given, height automagically selected to preserve aspect ratio.
...
widthxheight Maximum values of height and width given, aspect ratio preserved.
widthxheight^ Minimum values of width and height given, aspect ratio preserved.
widthxheight! Width and height emphatically given, original aspect ratio ignored.
...
This is from the Image Geometry section of the page on ImageMagick's command-line use. The fact that Perl module's documentation doesn't give this level of API detail usually implies that its binding implements most (all?) of these, and is covered by the generic documentation.
A command-line example, scaling an image down to 20%
perl -MImage::Magick -we'$f = shift // die "Pass image filename\n";
$img = Image::Magick->new;
$img->Read($f);
$img->Thumbnail(geometry => "20%");
$img->Write(filename => "scaled_$f")'
Judged by the example in the question it looks like you'd want the parameter value
widthxheight Maximum values of height and width given, aspect ratio preserved.
The more generic Resize and Scale methods also have geometry parameter.
Related
I am implementing a container which algins its children in a row and does kind of a linebreak when there is no horizontal space left. Thus, the required height depends on the available width. For larger widths, more content fits in one line and less lines are needed leading to less height. For smaller widths, less content fits in one line and more height is needed.
I subclassed the container and implemented the needed logic. The minimum width of the container is set to the minimum width of the widest child which would display one extreme case where there are stacked lines, some of them with only a single child inside them.
The problem is as follows: The window displaying the container has a very large height, for some cases even larger than my monitor. I am able to resize the window except that I cannot decrease the width. It turns out that the documentation for height-for width geometry management says:
Next, the toplevel will use the minimum width to query for the minimum height contextual to that width using gtk_widget_get_preferred_height_for_width()[...]. The minimum height for the minimum width is normally used to set the minimum size constraint on the toplevel (unless gtk_window_set_geometry_hints() is explicitly used instead).
Thus, the behaviour is expected as the window uses the height for the minimum width as its minimum height leading to the previously mentioned extreme case. This seems to be counterintuitive as in my case and an example used in the documentation (textflow in labels) the height will be maximal when the width is minimal vice versa. Only when actually allocating the available space, gtk considers to assign smaller heights when a larger width allows that. Even when using high widths in the window's default size and size request only the minimum width of the container is considered to derive the required height of the window.
The documentation already somehow contains a workaround, namely the geometry hints. But this seems to be a verbose and static way of sizing the window when the default width of the window together with the height-for-width-function could theoretically be used to easily determine the size of everything. The size-allocation already works as intended, only the size-negotiation cancels the benefits the height-for-width function could bring here. Is there any nice way of implementing the functionality required to fix the window sizing?
It seems as there is no intended workaround for this problem the way I searched for. The gtk size negotiation goes from bottom to top when requesting sizes and top to bottom when allocating. Thus, my container has no way of knowing how much width its parent could assign to it.
I solved the problem by adding a property which defines the minimum of children per row. This can be used to increase the minimum width and therefore decrease the minimum height. I only use it for the minimum width calculation while actually ignoring it doing the real size allocation which only is a minor detail I will document.
This documentation will be part of the code example I will provide as an answer to my old post which was about implementing a FlowBox with the behaviour described above.
Given any screen resolution, is there a way that I can figure out the amount of points in an inch? For instance, if I wanted to create an NSView that was 8.5 inches by 11 inches (like a sheet of a paper), is there an algorithm that will allow me to obtain the correct point values for the frame across many different types of Macs and screen resolutions?
It's not straightforward. I'm not sure there's a good way. I can provide an approach, but I haven't confirmed that this works reliably:
First, you can use CGDisplayScreenSize() to get the screen's physical size in millimeters. You can obtain the CGDirectDisplayID for a screen from NSScreen, which you can, in turn, get from the window. Obtain the screen's deviceDescription and get the value for the "NSScreenNumber" key. That may need to be cast to CGDirectDisplayID.
The problem from there is that the display mode may not fill the screen. It could be letterboxed or pillarboxed. Or, it might be stretched. This should be fairly uncommon these days, but still possible. You can obtain the display mode using CGDisplayCopyDisplayMode(). To determine if it's stretched, you can examine its ioFlags to see if they contain the bitmask kDisplayModeStretchedFlag (declared in IOKit).
If it's stretched, the screen's frame will have to be mapped to its size in millimeters separately for the X and Y axes. You assume the screen's frame.width (in points) maps to the full physical width, and similarly for the height.
If the mode is not stretched, you'll have to check the aspect ratio of the frame and the screen physical size to see if it's letter- or pillarboxed. If the aspect ratios are very close, then it's presumably not. That case is similar to the stretched case, but the width and height mappings should be equivalent.
If the aspect ratios differ significantly, then you compare them. If the screen's physical aspect ratio is larger than the frame's, then the screen is physically wider than the mode is using (pillarboxed). So, you compute the mapping from points to millimeters from the two heights. If the physical aspect ratio is smaller than the logical one, then the mode is letterboxed and you use the widths to compute the mapping.
Upon using the convert method, I would like to be able to transform a landscape or portrait image given the height and width specify without altering the ratio.
From the documentation, the 'clip' options act as follow:
'clip': Resizes the image to fit within the specified parameters without distorting, cropping, or changing the aspect ratio
If I have a 200x50 image and I want a 150x150 result, this would result in a 150x37px resized image with its ratio identical to the original's.
If I have a 100x50 image and I want a 150x150 result, this would result in a 150x75px resized image with its ratio identical to the original's.
'crop': Resizes the image to fit the specified parameters exactly by removing any parts of the image that don't fit within the
boundaries
If I have a 200x50 image and I want a 150x150 result, this would result in a 150x37px cropped image.
'scale': Resizes the image to fit the specified parameters exactly by scaling the image to the desired size
If I have a 200x50 image and I want a 150x150 result, this would result in a 150x150px resized image where the ratio has been altered to fit.
'max': Resizes the image to fit within the parameters, but as opposed to 'clip' will not scale the image if the image is smaller
than the output size
Same output as in 'clip' except that if I have a 100x50 image and I want a 150x150 result, this would result in a 100x50px resized image with its ratio identical to the original's.
What I would like to have is the ability to make an image conserve its ratio and be of the required dimension (with vertical and horizontal centering if need be). It would result in an image that is not distorted nor clipped.
I understand there are some trickiness to the task as you have to determine what color do you fill the space with (see ImageMagick doc about space filling).
Any insight would be great, hope it is not too much of an edge case.
Take a look at this set of examples in the ImageMagick documentation:
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/thumbnails/#square
We don't currently offer the ability to "fill" empty parts of the image with a background color, so do not support this use case. We are looking at adding it in the near term, and will update you when this is added.
I'm trying to convert movies from .avi to an iphone readable format
wherever I look, people suggest the following options for ffmpeg
ffmpeg -s 320x240 -aspect 320:240 [...]
This does not bode well for videos with a different aspect ratio!
How can I keep the aspect ratio from changing? Is there a way to set the size dynamically?
e.g. have the height to be 240 and the width variable?
Abstract from a rich article found here : http://www.frasq.org/en/transcoding-an-audio-or-a-video-file
To fit a video for a particular display, recompute its width and its height with the following formular:
aspect_ratio_of_display = width_of_display / height_of_display
aspect_ratio_of_video = width_of_video / height_of_video
if aspect_ratio_of_video > aspect_ratio_of_display
then
height = (height_of_video / aspect_ratio_of_video) and width = width_of_display
else
width = (height_of_display x aspect_ratio_of_video) and height = height_of_display
Remember to round the width and the height of the video to a multiple of 16.
Use a simple script in whatever language and get the video details, and adjust accordingly for a target size, you can also "letter box" or pad the top and bottoms for a better aspect ratio.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=702188
http://stream0.org/2008/01/find-and-extract-video-file-de.html
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Ipod_export
Can anybody please tell me what is the exact difference between stretching and scaling an image? Because you can anyway set the size of image and imageView both to match your requirements.
It depends on how you define stretching, but I would divide scaling into two distinct options based on whether or not the aspect ratio is preserved. Often it is desired to preserve the aspect ratio when scaling an image.
I would consider an increase in one dimension, but not proportionally in the other to be a "stretch". Similarly, a decrease in one dimension, but not proportionally in the other would be a "squash".
You may find this Daring Fireball post interesting.
Stretching sounds like showing small size (10x10) image at (100x100) or (100x10). so some times it gets pix-elated.
And scaling means to show a image to different size either small or big with maintaining its aspect ratio (programmetically), so it will look not improper, because when you stretch to different aspect ratio then some objects in image gets improper visibility.
Stretching (in iphone IB) means '9-slice scaling', scaling means just scaling.
When stretching you can determine which part of the image may be used for stretching and which part may not. For example when you have a rounded square, you do not want the roundings to stretch, especially when you're only stretching horizontally or vertically.
You indicate that you only want to use the middle pixel to stretch by (in IB) setting the X & Y values to 0.50 (half way) and the width & height values to 0.00 (minimum amount of pixels)
Lookup contentStretch in the docs for more info
when you don,t keep the congruence of your image, you see the image incongruous and height and width of your image is not suitable for showing. for resolving this issue you can multiply your image's width and height to to a constant coefficient.
Stretching and scaling don't mean anything different except maybe in connotation.
Is there a particular piece of text somewhere that you are trying to understand? Maybe we can help with that.
stretching image is stretching the size of a small image.
on the other hand scaling of image is scaling the image accoring the the viewport's width and viewport's height....
scaling can be done by small as well as large image.
you should take a good quality image and then should scale it
sprite.setscale(x,y);