looks like in PIL, resize() will give high quality thumbnails than thumbnail()

S

Summercoolness

In PIL, since thumbnail() first makes a draft copy of the image, and
then resize it, so thumbnail() can run a lot faster than resize()
because draft() seems a lot faster when resizing from very big images
to small images... (such as the original image is 3000 x 2000, and it
can make a draft really quickly to 375 x 250, and then resize to, say
200 x 133 as a thumbnail)

However, the double resizing probably will make a thumbnail with a
lower quality than if it is directly resizing from the original... as
each resizing involves some approximation.

however, i tried directly using resize() and it is a lot slower.

But looks like if quality is of concern and time is not an issue, then
we can use the resize() to create thumbnails instead.
 
S

Summercoolness

In PIL, since thumbnail() first makes a draft copy of the image, and
then resize it, so thumbnail() can run a lot faster than resize()
because draft() seems a lot faster when resizing from very big images
to small images... (such as the original image is 3000 x 2000, and it
can make a draft really quickly to 375 x 250, and then resize to, say
200 x 133 as a thumbnail)

as a matter of fact, i tried using thumbnail() to resize photos of 3456
x 2304 to 800 x 533 and it is a lot faster than using resize()
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,016
Latest member
TatianaCha

Latest Threads

Top