Imagick::rollImage

[edit] Last updated: Fri, 17 May 2013

Imagick::resizeImage

(PECL imagick 2.0.0)

Imagick::resizeImage — 画像のサイズを変更する

説明

bool Imagick::resizeImage ( int $columns , int $rows , int $filter , float $blur [, bool $bestfit = false ] )

指定した大きさとフィルタで、画像のサイズを変更します。

注意: パラメータ bestfit の挙動は Imagick 3.0.0 で変わりました。これより前のバージョンでは、200x150 の画像に対して 400x400 を指定した場合は何もせずそのままになっていました。 Imagick 3.0.0 以降では、この画像は 400x300 に拡大されます。これが、指定したサイズに対して「ベストフィット」する大きさだからです。 bestfit を使う場合は、幅と高さの両方を指定しなければなりません。

パラメータ

columns: 画像の幅。
rows: 画像の高さ。
filter: フィルタ定数の一覧を参照ください。
blur: blur 要素。> 1 はぼやけた状態、< 1 はシャープな状態を表します。
bestfit: オプションの fit パラメータ。

返り値

成功した場合に TRUE を返します。

変更履歴

バージョン	説明
2.1.0	オプションのパラメータ fit が追加され、このメソッドは、比例形式の拡大・縮小をサポートするようになりました。どちらかのパラメータにゼロを渡すと比例形式の拡大・縮小を行います。

Imagick::rollImage

Imagick::resetImagePage

[edit] Last updated: Fri, 17 May 2013

add a note User Contributed Notes Imagick::resizeImage - [7 notes]

down

dennis at gofolo dot com ¶

3 years ago


Having to do alot of resizing, i needed to know the speeds of the different resize filters.

This was how long it took to resize a 5906x5906 JPEG image to 1181x1181.



FILTER_POINT took: 0.334532976151 seconds

FILTER_BOX took: 0.777871131897 seconds

FILTER_TRIANGLE took: 1.3695909977 seconds

FILTER_HERMITE took: 1.35866093636 seconds

FILTER_HANNING took: 4.88722896576 seconds

FILTER_HAMMING took: 4.88665103912 seconds

FILTER_BLACKMAN took: 4.89026689529 seconds

FILTER_GAUSSIAN took: 1.93553304672 seconds

FILTER_QUADRATIC took: 1.93322920799 seconds

FILTER_CUBIC took: 2.58396601677 seconds

FILTER_CATROM took: 2.58508896828 seconds

FILTER_MITCHELL took: 2.58368492126 seconds

FILTER_LANCZOS took: 3.74232912064 seconds

FILTER_BESSEL took: 4.03305602074 seconds

FILTER_SINC took: 4.90098690987 seconds 



I ended up choosing CATROM as it has a very similar result to LANCZOS, but is significantly faster.

down

jdhawk at gmail dot com ¶

2 years ago


In our linux environment, using resizeImage with any filter produced extremely high CPU Utilization (in the range of 40-50%) while doing batch resizing.



We switched to scaleImage, which produces similar results to FILTER_BOX, and CPU Utilization dropped to 2-3%. 



Using XHProf to profile the two batch jobs showed amazing decreases in CPU Time, so if you're doing a lot of picture resizing, it might be beneficial to use scaleImage instead of resizeImage, as it seems to be much much more efficient.

down

michael dot heca at gmail dot com ¶

3 years ago


Use setImageOpacity(1.0) before resizing, for proper handling of transparency in png and gif.

down

andrabr at gmail dot com ¶

5 years ago


blur:  > 1 is blurry, < 1 is sharp



To create a nice thumbnail (LANCZOS is the slowest filter):



<?php



$thumb = new Imagick();

$thumb->readImage('myimage.gif');    $thumb->resizeImage(320,240,Imagick::FILTER_LANCZOS,1);

$thumb->writeImage('mythumb.gif');

$thumb->clear();

$thumb->destroy(); 



?>



Or, a shorter version of the same:



<?php



$thumb = new Imagick('myimage.gif');



$thumb->resizeImage(320,240,Imagick::FILTER_LANCZOS,1);

$thumb->writeImage('mythumb.gif');



$thumb->destroy(); 



?>

down

-1

billadoid [at ' at '] ['gmail' here] dot com ¶

4 years ago


<?php


$height=$thumb->getImageHeight();


$width=$thumb->getImageWidth();


if ($height < $width)


  $thumb->scaleImage(800,0);


 else


  $thumb->scaleImage(0,600);


?>





Something like this will cause a fatal error when you try to create a thumbnail of an uploaded picture of.. 10x15000 resolution.





It will work nice only if you enable the 'fit':





<?php


$height=$thumb->getImageHeight();


$width=$thumb->getImageWidth();


if ($width > 800)


$thumb->scaleImage(800,600,true);


if ($height > 600)


$thumb->scaleImage(800,600,true);


?>





Note: Maybe I misspelled something or though something wrong. i.e. you could think why would I create a thumbnail of 800x600.





Hope it will helps s/o

down

Spitfires ¶

1 year ago


To avoid upscaling when using the "bestfit" param, check the image dimensions before resizing:



<?php

    $image = new Imagick( $filename );

    $imageprops = $image->getImageGeometry();

    if ($imageprops['width'] <= 200 && $imageprops['height'] <= 200) {

        // don't upscale

    } else {

        $image->resizeImage(200,200, imagick::FILTER_LANCZOS, 0.9, true);

    }

?>

down

-2

Spitfires ¶

1 year ago


The changelog comment



  "2.1.0 Added optional fit parameter. This method now supports proportional scaling. Pass zero as either parameter for proportional scaling."



is poorly structured and therefore IMO misleading.  Yes for proportional scaling you pass 0 as either parameter... however this is *not* true if you use the optional fit param.  When bestfit == true you must specify a *non-zero* value for both columns and rows.  Note it WILL still scale proportionally e.g.



   Imagick::resizeImage ( 200, 200,  imagick::FILTER_LANCZOS, 1, TRUE)



will resize a 1000x750 image to 200x150



So for proportional resizing:

without "bestfit"

   Imagick::resizeImage ( 200, 0,  imagick::FILTER_LANCZOS, 1)



with "bestfit"

   Imagick::resizeImage ( 200, 200,  imagick::FILTER_LANCZOS, 1, TRUE)

add a note