Server Config:
Windows Server 2003
IIS 6
ColdFusion 8 Standard Edition
Java Version 6 Update 18
I have a ColdFusion application that allows users to upload images that will be added to an existing PDF. When the images are added to the PDF, they have to fit within a minimum/maximum height and width, so the uploaded image needs to be scaled to fit.
For instance, let's say the minimum height and width for a given image is 100x100, and the maximum height and width is 200x200, and the user uploads an image that is 500x1000. I use the logic below to scale that image down without skewing the image (it keeps its original shape) to 100x200. For an image smaller than the minimum, it is scaled up (in the example above, a 50x50 image would be scaled up to 100x100).
Unfortunately, I'm running into a lot of problems with users uploading "invalid images". I know that ColdFusion has problems working with Progressive JPEGs and CMYK JPEGs, but even some TIFFs are throwing errors. Also, a 3MB TIFF image takes over a minute to scale (not to mention the loss of resolution that occurs, which I have submitted as a separate question here.)
I've added logic to prevent ColdFusion from trying to process an "invalid image" by using the IsImageFile() function, but the users are very frustrated when they have an image that they can open and view on their PC, but we can't accept it. Do online print companies (i.e. Shutterfly, Kodak, etc.) have these issues? I can't remember ever having an issue on these websites (though I know they may not necessarily use ColdFusion).
Any thoughts on what I can do to allow more types of images to be used (Progressive, CMYK, etc.) and improve performance?
You will likely have to use a non-CF solution like we had to do before CF8. Some libraries mentioned here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/158756/what-is-the-best-image-manipulation-library
Scaling time is heavily dependent on the algorithm you chose to use. Adding images to PDFs in ColdFusion is unpredictable at best. I found them to be often inflated, dramatically increasing the PDF file size.
Here is some information from the docs:
http://livedocs.adobe.com/coldfusion/8/htmldocs/help.html?content=functions_in-k_16.html
Supported image file formats
The cfimage tag operates on a number of different file formats. To list the formats that are supported on the server where the ColdFusion application is deployed, use the GetReadableImageFormats function and the GetWriteableImageFormats function.
ColdFusion supports the following default image formats on Macintosh, Windows, and Unix operating systems:
JPEG
GIF
TIFF
PNG
BMP
ColdFusion does not support the following image formats:
Animated GIF
Multipage TIFF
PSD
AI
CMYK support
The cfimage tag supports reading and writing CMYK images, but does not support actions that require converting the images. For example, you can use CMYK images with the read, write, writeToBrowser, resize, rotate, and info actions. You cannot use CMYK images with the convert, captcha, and border actions. The same rule applies to image functions. For example, the ImageNew, ImageRead, and ImageWrite functions support CMYK images, but the ImageAddBorder function does not.
Related
I have been looking at SVGKit and I am finding conflicting ideas. Some say it's slower than PNG and others saying it is fast.
I was hoping to get a recommendation and which route I should take. When I am exporting my vector graphics to PNG for display, would it not make sense to use an SVG instead ?
Of course this gives the added value that it remains a vector.
Or is it still recommended in exporting everything to a PNG ?
You might consider the middle-way introduced in Xcode 7. Here you add your assets to the project as vector images (PDF) and at build-time Xcode automatically generates the PNGs in all needed sizes (1x, 2x, 3x).
Personally, I only use SVGs when necessary, like if I need to be able to change the color of the (parts of the) image. I believe there can be a performance hit when resizing vector images at run-time, although Android uses vectors as default, so it might be insignificant.
SVG is most resource intensive and can be used if you need to display something that can be zoomed in and out while PNG should be preferred for most UI graphics (logos, icons, etc.), as it is crisp yet remains lightweight and fast to display so there is no way to compare SVG with PNG in term of Performance.
if you are going after a Crystal clear images you can use pdf based graphics, which are supported by Xcode Using Vector Images in Xcode
if you still need to implement SVGKit i always suggest using some tools (like SVGCleaner) to clean and simplify SVG in order to enhance performance.
My app requires that each user has a profile picture of around 140*140px. Right now I am using jpgs, I am wondering if performance wise it will be better to use pngs. I read pngs are good for small UI elements and images, jpg for large images with detail such as photos. Obviously my profile pics are photos but they are small. Would it make much difference switching to png? Thanks
JPEG is best for small file sizes of photos, even for low resolutions.
PNG makes sense when there are many pixels of the exact same color next to each other. This is not the case with photos.
These should be helpful for you.
When to use PNG or JPG in iPhone development?
PNG vs. GIF vs. JPEG vs. SVG - When best to use?
Apple optimizes PNG images that are included in your iPhone app bundle. In fact, the iPhone uses a special encoding in which the color bytes are optimized for the hardware. XCode handles this special encoding for you when you build your project. So, you do see additional benefits to using PNG's on an iPhone other than their size consideration. For this reason it is definitely recommended to use PNG's for any images that appear as part of the interface (in a table view, labels, etc).
As for displaying a full screen image such as a photograph you may still reap benefits with PNG's since they are non-lossy and the visual quality should be better than a JPG not to mention resource usage with decoding the image. You may need to decrease the quality of your JPG's in order to see a real benefit in file size but then you are displaying non-optimal images.
File size is certainly a factor but there are other considerations at play as well when choosing an image format.
I want to display a page containing about 6000 tiny image thumbnails (40x40 each). To avoid having to make 6000 HTTP requests, I am exploring CSS sprites, i.e. concatenating all these thumbnails into one long strip and using CSS to crop the required images out. Unfortunately, I have discovered that JPEG files cannot be larger than 65500 pixels in any one dimension. Wary of further limits in the web stack, I am wondering: are any of the following unable to cope with an image with dimensions of 40x240000?
Internet Explorer
Opera
WebKit
Any CSS spec
Any HTML spec
The PNG spec
Edit: the purpose of this is simply to display an entire image collection at once, requiring that the user at most has to scroll. I want the "micro-thumbnails" to flow into an existing CSS layout, so I can't just use a big rectangular image. I don't want the user to have to click through multiple pages to see everything. The total number of pixels is not that great - only twice what would fit on a 2560x1600 display. The total file size of all the micro-thumbnails is only a couple of megabytes. Assuming every image is manipulated uncompressed in the browser's memory, taking 8 bytes of storage per pixel (RGBA plus 100% overhead fudge factor), we are talking RAM usage in the low hundreds of megabytes; not unreasonable for a specialized application in the year 2010. The only unreasonable thing is the volume of HTTP requests that would be generated if all micro-thumbnails were sent individually.
Well, Safari/iOS lists these limits:
The maximum size for decoded GIF, PNG, and TIFF images is 3 megapixels.
That is, ensure that width * height ≤ 3 * 1024 * 1024. Note that the decoded size is far larger than the encoded size of an image.
The maximum decoded image size for JPEG is 32 megapixels using subsampling.
JPEG images can be up to 32 megapixels due to subsampling, which allows JPEG images to decode to a size that has one sixteenth the number of pixels. JPEG images larger than 2 megapixels are subsampled—that is, decoded to a reduced size. JPEG subsampling allows the user to view images from the latest digital cameras.
Individual resource files must be less than 10 MB.
This limit applies to HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or nonstreamed media.
http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/CreatingContentforSafarioniPhone/CreatingContentforSafarioniPhone.html
Based on your update, I'd still really recommend not using this approach. Don't you think there's a reason that Google's image search doesn't work like this?
As such, I'd recommend simply loading images as required via Ajax. (i.e.: When the user scrolls below the currently visible set of images.) Whilst this will use more connections, it'll mean that you can have sensibly sized thumbnails and as a general approach is much more manageable than having to re-generate pre-generated thumbnail image "sheets" on the back-end when a new image is added, etc.
This question already has answers here:
What are the different usecases of PNG vs. GIF vs. JPEG vs. SVG? [closed]
(14 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm using ImageMagick to convert some files from one format to another. I was always under the impression that .png files were supposed to be as big/small as .jpg if not smaller, and definitely smaller than .gif.
However when I run
convert photo.jpg photo.png
The files I'm getting out is about 6 times bigger than the original jpg.
Original jpg is a regular photo about 300x500 px, 52 kb. Output is a proper png of the same dimensions, but size is about 307 kb?
Does anyoone know what the hack is going on? Am I doing something wrong?
P.S.:
I tried both on Debian and Windows with the same results.
P.P.S.:
Also when I add resize option to this and resize to 10000 x 10000. Converting and resizing to jpg takes a few seconds, but it works, if I do the same of png, I jsut strt running out of memory altogether
P.P.P.S.:
For people who keep marking this question as duplicate of PNG vs. GIF vs. JPEG vs. SVG - When best to use? . Please read carefully and understand the question. It's not a duplicate, since this question asks' about files produced programmatically with specific application (image magick). The question you marking as duplicate, is asking which image format is better to use on the web. Two DIFFERENT questions.
The key thing to note here is that each image file format is best for specific purposes.
JPEG stands for “Joint Photographic Experts Group.” That right there should tell you that the .JPG file format is optimized for photographs. It doesn’t work so well for line-art, logos, gradient or tiled / patterned backgrounds, and the like. .JPG’s DCT (Discreet Cosine Transform) artifacts (the “blocky” artifacts we all know and loathe) are much more noticeable with line art and logos than with photos.
PNG has replaced GIF for everything that GIF was ever good for, except one, and that only because no clear standard has emerged: animations. Animated .GIFs are well known on the Web. There are two competing standards for animated .PNGs: APNG and MNG.
APNG is supported in most modern browsers, and is also fully backwards compatible (the file extension is .PNG, not .APNG, and if any program that can display .PNGs but doesn’t know APNG is “fed” an APNG, it will display either a stand-in image of the developer’s choice, or the first frame of the animation if no such stand-in was provided — as far as the older program is concerned, it’s just an ordinary single-frame .PNG with that one image in it — the rest is safely ignored). Gecko (FF, etc.) and Presto (Opera) support it natively, and Google Chrome (using Webkit) can with an add-on.
MNG has the backing of the actual PNG-format development team, but is its own format and is not backwards compatible, but is more powerful and flexible. Right now, only KHTML-based browsers (Konquerer) support it: not Trident (IE), Gecko, Webkit (Chrome, Chromium, Safari), nor Presto.
PNG does everything (except animations unless enhanced with APNG) that GIF does, and better. All else being equal, a .PNG will almost always be smaller than a .GIF at the same resolution and bit depth. Like .GIF, .PNG can support color depths up to 8 bits per pixel in indexed-color (paletted) mode, but unlike .GIF (yet like .JPEG) it also supports direct-color mode at 24 bits per pixel.
In either mode it can add 8 bits of alpha transparency, unlike .GIF (which can only do indexed color transparency [pick a color out of the palette to be replaced with 100% transparency, aka invisibility] — .PNG can do that, too). Alpha transparency produces much better results than indexed transparency, because the pixels can be partially transparent, whereas with indexed transparency (the only kind available in .GIF) your choices are either opaque or invisible. This makes for “halos” around non-rectangular objects when placed against background colors other than the one the .GIF or indexed .PNG was originally “matted” against. It also inhibits being able to do effects such as glows, drop shadows, and, of course, see-through colored objects (without dithering). Alpha transparency can do all of those things with ease, against almost any background (glows would be largely invisible on a white background, and drop shadows would be invisible on black, but you know what I mean).
Yes, you can do 8-bit alpha transparency in an indexed-color .PNG! And guess what? Even Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 can display those just fine, complete with transparency! It’s only the 32-bit .PNGs (24-bit RGB color + 8-bit alpha) that IE6 choked on and displayed as gray!
The most well-known program that can export PNG8 (indexed color) with alpha transparency is Adobe (formerly Macromedia) Fireworks. The Photoshop “Save for Web and Devices” (at least as of CS3) could not do that, despite having basically lifted the feature from Fireworks when Adobe bought out Macromedia. It can save PNG8, but only with indexed-color transparency.
Anyway, full 32-bit (or even 24-bit) PNGs will be pretty large, though usually much smaller than the nearest equivalent .BMP or .TGA or uncompressed .TIFF or some such (unless you’re trying to do a photograph with it — that’s what JPEG is for!). It will usually be somewhat smaller even than .RLE (losslessly compressed .BMP) or losslessly compressed .TIF, all else being equal.
Unlike most of these other formats, PNG also supports 48-bit RGB color, with optional 16 bits of alpha transparency, for extremely high quality (much higher than most monitors can display). These are best used as an intermediate storage format, to retain information from a high bit depth scanner or camera (RAW mode) or some such. Their file sizes would be quite large, despite the lossless compression.
One thing that .PNG cannot currently do is handle non-RGB color spaces such as CMYK or L*a*b.
In short:
For photographs, use .JPG.
For line art and logos of limited color, use indexed-color .PNG (PNG8), with alpha transparency if needed.
For line art and logos of extensive color (e.g. lots of gradient fills, metallic chrome-type reflection effects, etc.), use direct-color .PNG (PNG24) with alpha if needed, if you want the best quality or need transparency (and don’t mind it not working in IE6 or use one of a variety of IE6 workarounds for transparent PNGs), and don’t mind the larger files and bandwidth usage. Otherwise, use .JPG, but be aware that the quality will be degraded. You may need to crank the JPEG quality up pretty high, especially for logos or other graphics with “text” in them, which would reduce your file size savings.
For non-Flash/Silverlight/video/HTML5 Canvas animations, .GIF if the main choice at present, but be prepared to switch to APNG (I don’t think MNG is going to beat it, despite the more official support from the JPEG developers).
JPG is a lossy compression algorithm while PNG is a lossless one.
This fact alone will (in general) make JPG images smaller than PNG ones. You can tweak the compression ratios for each format, so it could also be that you're not compressing your PNG files as much as your JPG ones.
For a photographic image saving as JPG will usually produce a smaller file than PNG as there's more noise or randomness in the image for the compression to work with. Images created by graphic art tools will tend to have more hard edges and areas of solid colour which will compress better in PNG.
If you have text in your image then PNG is going to produce a better quality image as the harder edges of the characters won't be blurred like they would be if JPG is used.
GIF is smaller because it's based on an colour palette (of 256 colours) rather than the separate RGB values for each pixel (or group of pixels) in JPG and PNG.
The PNG format can provide images of 24 bits per pixel or 8 bits per pixel. JPG is a 24 bit format, but it uses lossy compression to reduce the file size significantly. PNG and GIF both use lossless compression, but GIF only works with 8 bits so it requires your image to have 256 colors or less - this often results in a grainier picture.
Try the -colors and -dither options in ImageMagick to reduce the number of bits in your PNG output. At that point it should be comparable to the GIF file size. If you need to reduce it further, there are utilities to optimize the PNG.
The .jpeg file format is a lossy format, it throws information away. Which makes for good compression ratios. The .gif file format is not lossy but loses other information, it only supports 256 colors. The .png file format is not lossy and preserves the color range.
It depends on the kind of image. JPEG's lossy compression works very well on images with lots of color gradients (i.e. photos).
Try it on an image consisting of areas with the same color separated by sharp edges (screenshots are good, unless they show a photo desktop background, and the fancy window borders and task bar of Vista and Windows 7 also tend to mess this up). JPEG is bad at that kind of thing, and you'll probably find PNG to compress better (probably better than GIF too).
Replying to :
Does anyone know what the hack is going on? Am I doing something wrong?
yeah I study this, you aren't doing nothing wrong, you produced 8-bit/color RGB PNG
I solve it with reduce or compress png with pngnq ( http://pngnq.sourceforge.net/ ) that produce 8-bit/color colormap PNG.
pngnq seems to me the most improved project, since is a fork of others like pngquant etc, and is normally in main stream of Linux distros so I just do this:
convert photo.jpg png:- | pngnq -s 1 > photo.png
For the last upvoter (2016): pngnq as been deprecated in favor of pngquant (https://github.com/pornel/pngquant)
I'm looking for software to create PNG8 format transparent images as per this article.
NOTE: I need a Linux solution myself, but please submit answers for other OSes.
pngquant does a good job of converting to PNG8 while preserving full transparency.
If you're size-conscious, you may also be interested in pngcrush, which can usually (losslessly) compress PNG files quite a bit.
I also needed a Linux solution and found pngnq to do a pretty good job. It seems to be designed specifically for creating 8-bit PNG images with alpha channels.
apt-get install pngnq # If on Ubuntu/Debian
For Mac: ImageOptim and ImageAlpha are GUIs that run pngcrush, pngquant, and various other normally command-line compression utilities. http://pngmini.com/
The link you provided references ImageMagick, which is an excellent toolkit for manipulating images on Linux.
Ah, if I remember correctly, when I have read this article some months ago, pngquant hadn't a Windows version. I see it has one now. So I tried it, and pngnq too.
The latter seems to do a slightly better job on the IceAlpha.png test image (from libpng.org), at the cost of a slightly bigger image (it can be post-processed with pngcrush or pngout anyway).
The dithering algorithms (the two of pngquant, the only one of pngnq) are different, and it might be worth having both tools, converting images with all algorithms and see what looks the best.
For the record, on the Windows side, IrfanView (4.10) displays these images very well (using the transparency level on each palette entry) while XnView (1.85.1) and GIMP (2.4) apply only a full transparency/opaque display, à la GIF: the light bulb given as an example in the linked article has a transparent background around it, but the orange part is fully opaque.
And the excellent utility TweakPNG shows we have a PLTE (palette, 222 entries) chunk and a tRNS (alpha values for palette colors, 222 entries) chunk. Even more, it allows to edit each palette entry, color and alpha level. It might be an interesting complementary tool for this format.
Note on IrfanView support: if it handles PNG8 correctly for transparency, it doesn't handle gamma information in PNG files: on the toucan image or the ping-pong image, I had to apply a gamma of 2.4 to get similar (lighter) colors.
Note also that IrfanView does an awful job of converting 32-bit PNG images to 256, allowing only one transparent color, which looks bad if full color was dithered!
I see that the GIMP manual states: "his “PNG8” format, like GIF, uses only one bit for transparency; only two transparency levels are possible, transparent or opaque. "
while the ISO/W3C standard states:
"The tRNS chunk specifies either alpha values that are associated with palette entries (for indexed-colour images) or a single transparent colour (for greyscale and truecolour images).". The PNG specification 1.2 added: "Although simple transparency is not as elegant as the full alpha channel, it requires less storage space and is sufficient for many common cases."
It looks like the unique transparent color is more implemented than the full transparency palette, alas. At least browsers get it right.
It depends on what exactly your original images look like.
If your images already contain 256 or fewer colors (RGBA values), you need only look at pngout (Windows) (Linux/BSD/Mac OS X ports), which you should already be using to optimize your PNG images anyway. It can't quantize images, but it can save them as 8-bit, including alpha transparency. Just pass in the /c3 (or -c3 on Linux et al.) color option to force it to save the image as PNG8.
If your images do contain more than 256 colors, you have a few more, but all less than perfect options:
Adobe Fireworks is probably the best option in terms of the resulting image quality. It will do the job if you only need to convert a few images, or if you don't mind relying on Fireworks to do the batch processing. I did find that it sometimes somehow limits the number of colors in the palette, creating a worse quality image than necessary. I don't know if that's perhaps a bug in CS3 that's been fixed in CS4.
If you're not on Windows or OS X this obviously isn't an option, and buying Fireworks just for this probably isn't worth it either.
The only alternatives I know of are the already mentioned pngquant and pngnq. I've had better luck with pngnq, but that's probably just going to depend on which quantization strategy works best on the files you're working with.
Unfortunately, I've noticed that neither of them work very well with small amounts of transparency (say, an opaque image with transparent, rounded corners).
I recommend "The GIMP" as it is possible to output in PNG8 and supports Linux/Windows. If you want a quick Windows-only solution, I also recommend IrfanView.
Microsoft Windows: Ultimate Paint (freeware and shareware
versions are available).
Both versions can save as an 8 bit transparent PNG image.
It can also save as a 4 bit PNG (16 colours). This cuts the
file size in half compared to 8 bit.
Input formats include BMP, GIF, ICO, JPG/JPEG and PNG.
The freeware edition of Ultimate Paint Standard 2.88 LE can
be downloaded directly from
http://www.ultimatepaint.com/up.zip (1.7 MB).