Looking for a *FAST* graphics library More options

[cartoper]

I am working on writing an Apache Module (in C/C++) that needs to
resize (down) large images (4MB to 16MB) VERY quickly. The objective
is not to make the images look great for printing, just look good on
the screen as low rez (900x600 max). Initally I was doing this
in .Net, to downsize a 6MP image, it took around 0.5 seconds to read
in, downsize, and save the image. The main problem with .Net is that
it is not crossplate, I am porting this code to run on both Windows
and *NIX.

I have timed ImageMagick on a 6MP image and it took about 2 seconds
no
matter which filter I use. I did find this web site:
http://www.thefreecountry.com/sourcecode/graphics.shtml and was
wondering if anyone knew if any of the libraries where very fast. I
will need to put text on the images, too, but I figure I can do that
with another, slower library like ImageMagick or an equivalent, ONCE
the image is downsized. Any suggestions?

Cartoper

 

[user923005]

I am working on writing an Apache Module (in C/C++) that needs to
resize (down) large images (4MB to 16MB) VERY quickly. The objective
is not to make the images look great for printing, just look good on
the screen as low rez (900x600 max). Initally I was doing this
in .Net, to downsize a 6MP image, it took around 0.5 seconds to read
in, downsize, and save the image. The main problem with .Net is that
it is not crossplate, I am porting this code to run on both Windows
and *NIX.

I have timed ImageMagick on a 6MP image and it took about 2 seconds
no
matter which filter I use. I did find this web site:http://www.thefreecountry.com/sourcecode/graphics.shtmland was
wondering if anyone knew if any of the libraries where very fast. I
will need to put text on the images, too, but I figure I can do that
with another, slower library like ImageMagick or an equivalent, ONCE
the image is downsized. Any suggestions?

Yes. Try where your post is spot-on topical.
They deal with lossy compression and lossless compression and
compression speed and compression algorithms and compression ideas and
compression snake-oil, etc.

Over here, in we just deal with the C language. They
are a little less formal in but I guess that in any
case it is always best to ask for meat in the butcher shop, flowers in
the flower shop and squeezers in the squeezer shop. The squeezer shop
is called "
HTH

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, so if
the kind denizens of could be so kind as to trim
the C and C++ newsgroups on their follow-ups, it would be greatly
appreciated.

TIA

 

[cartoper]

Yes. Try where your post is spot-on topical.
They deal with lossy compression and lossless compression and
compression speed and compression algorithms and compression ideas and
compression snake-oil, etc.

Over here, in we just deal with the C language. They
are a little less formal in but I guess that in any
case it is always best to ask for meat in the butcher shop, flowers in
the flower shop and squeezers in the squeezer shop. The squeezer shop
is called "news:comp.compression".

Thank you, I did not know that the comp.compression existed, now I
do

Is there anywhere I can go to learn the general topics of all the
comp.* news groups?

Cartoper

 

[user923005]

Thank you, I did not know that the comp.compression existed, now I
do

Is there anywhere I can go to learn the general topics of all the
comp.* news groups?

For general FAQS:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/

For computer stuff in particular:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/

 

[santosh]

user923005 wrote:

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ... ]

Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ... ]

Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

 

[santosh]

santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ... ]

Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

I think I actually proved that I didn't think before posting.

Anyway my point stands.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 09:02:

santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ... ]

Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

Check the headers of Santosh's message. He added a follow-up to
comp.lang.c. No visible effect because it was posted here, but it proves
the point.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 09:02:

santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

<snip>

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ...
]
Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

Check the headers of Santosh's message. He added a follow-up to
comp.lang.c. No visible effect because it was posted here, but it
proves the point.

Read it again, starting with user923005's article. You may find that
reading it aloud will help you get the point more easily.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 11:38:

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 09:02:

santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

<snip>

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ...
]
Actually it does, as this post illustrates.
You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

Check the headers of Santosh's message. He added a follow-up to
comp.lang.c. No visible effect because it was posted here, but it
proves the point.

Read it again, starting with user923005's article. You may find that
reading it aloud will help you get the point more easily.

user923005 said that Google lacks an ability to set follow ups, Santosh
said it had the ability and proved it by setting a follow up. Therefore
Santosh proved his point. If you cannot see the followups header in his
message that is your problem, but it was there as I know because I can
see it. To quote from his headers:

| Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
| Subject: OT - Re: Looking for a *FAST* graphics library More options
| Followup-To: comp.lang.c
| Date: 31 Mar 2007 00:59:20 -0700
| Organization: http://groups.google.com

Note that a Followup-to line is in there and it is posted through Google
just as he claimed. Santosh merely set followups to the same group
instead of a different group so as, I would assume, to save having to
move the discussion to some other random group.

 

[Flash Gordon]

santosh wrote, On 31/03/07 09:06:

santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

<snip>

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ... ]
Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

I think I actually proved that I didn't think before posting.

Anyway my point stands.

You did successfully set a followup, you just set it to here.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 11:38:

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 09:02:
santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

<snip>

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [
... ]
Actually it does, as this post illustrates.
You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.
Check the headers of Santosh's message. He added a follow-up to
comp.lang.c. No visible effect because it was posted here, but it
proves the point.

Read it again, starting with user923005's article. You may find that
reading it aloud will help you get the point more easily.

user923005 said that Google lacks an ability to set follow ups,
Right.

Santosh said it had the ability

No, he didn't. That's what he intended to say, but it's not what he
actually said.

 

[Richard]

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 11:38:

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 09:02:
santosh said:

user923005 wrote:

<snip>

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [
... ]
Actually it does, as this post illustrates.
You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.
Check the headers of Santosh's message. He added a follow-up to
comp.lang.c. No visible effect because it was posted here, but it
proves the point.

Read it again, starting with user923005's article. You may find that
reading it aloud will help you get the point more easily.

user923005 said that Google lacks an ability to set follow ups,
Right.

Santosh said it had the ability

No, he didn't. That's what he intended to say, but it's not what he
actually said.

It seems clear to me that he said and demonstrated exactly what you are
refuting. Could you be more specific in your putting down of his claims?

Santosh said "Actually it does <have an ability to set followups> as
this post illustrates".

Apologies for being incredibly thick, but it seems relatively
clear. What are the rest of us missing that you have determined to be
false?

 

[santosh]

Richard wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 31/03/07 09:02:
santosh said:
user923005 wrote:

<snip>

P.S.
Google (so far as I know) lacks any ability to set followups, [ ... ]

Actually it does, as this post illustrates.

You actually proved not that it does, but that it doesn't.

Santosh said "Actually it does <have an ability to set followups> as
this post illustrates".

Apologies for being incredibly thick, but it seems relatively
clear. What are the rest of us missing that you have determined to be
false?

It's a semantic thing, caused both by my premature snipping of
user923005's post and the exact way I worded my own reply. If you read
both the snippet of user923005's post and my reply to it together, you
might realise that I actually ended up, quite unintentionally,
concurring with him.