PythonMagick on Windows

[Adam Endicott]

Does anyone know anything about PythonMagick? I've got a project that
could use ImageMagick, so I went looking around for PythonMagick, and
I'm a bit lost.

I was able to download the PythonMagick source from the ImageMagick
site, but I'm on Windows and don't have the ability to compile it. I
found reference to a windows installer for PythonMagick on the wxPython
wiki, but the links take me to procoders.net, which seems to have
abandoned the project (at least I couldn't find anything to download).

So what's the state of this project?

Actually, I'm wondering if I would gain anything by using PythonMagick
anyway. I'm going to be distributing a py2exe created executable that
needs to do some image manipulation. Would I still need ImageMagick
seperately installed on the client machine to use PythonMagick anyway?
Or could it all be self contained? If I'd need to install ImageMagick
on client machines anyway, I guess I can just use the commandline
interface to ImageMagick from Python.

Thoughts/suggestions?

 

[Travis E. Oliphant]

Does anyone know anything about PythonMagick? I've got a project that
could use ImageMagick, so I went looking around for PythonMagick, and
I'm a bit lost.

I was able to download the PythonMagick source from the ImageMagick
site, but I'm on Windows and don't have the ability to compile it. I
found reference to a windows installer for PythonMagick on the wxPython
wiki, but the links take me to procoders.net, which seems to have
abandoned the project (at least I couldn't find anything to download).

So what's the state of this project?

Actually, I'm wondering if I would gain anything by using PythonMagick
anyway. I'm going to be distributing a py2exe created executable that
needs to do some image manipulation. Would I still need ImageMagick
seperately installed on the client machine to use PythonMagick anyway?
Or could it all be self contained? If I'd need to install ImageMagick
on client machines anyway, I guess I can just use the commandline
interface to ImageMagick from Python.

There is a boost-less interface to imagemagick on the pylab project page
at Sourceforge. Last I checked it compiled for windows. But, I
haven't really played with it for a while. You might find the old
binaries there useful for at least some version of Image Magick.

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1315


-Travis Oliphant

 

[Claudio Grondi]

Does anyone know anything about PythonMagick? I've got a project that
could use ImageMagick, so I went looking around for PythonMagick, and
I'm a bit lost.

I was able to download the PythonMagick source from the ImageMagick
site, but I'm on Windows and don't have the ability to compile it. I
found reference to a windows installer for PythonMagick on the wxPython
wiki, but the links take me to procoders.net, which seems to have
abandoned the project (at least I couldn't find anything to download).

So what's the state of this project?

Actually, I'm wondering if I would gain anything by using PythonMagick
anyway. I'm going to be distributing a py2exe created executable that
needs to do some image manipulation. Would I still need ImageMagick
seperately installed on the client machine to use PythonMagick anyway?
Or could it all be self contained? If I'd need to install ImageMagick
on client machines anyway, I guess I can just use the commandline
interface to ImageMagick from Python.

Thoughts/suggestions?

Why is PIL *(Python Image Library) not suitable to do the graphics?

http://www.pythonware.com/products/pil/

Claudio

 

[Adam Endicott]

Why is PIL *(Python Image Library) not suitable to do the graphics?

http://www.pythonware.com/products/pil/

Claudio

I am using PIL for some other things, but what I need ImageMagick for
is to convert a PDF into a series of jpegs (one per page). Its the only
tool I've found to do this at a good enough resolution.

 

[Claudio Grondi]

I am using PIL for some other things, but what I need ImageMagick for
is to convert a PDF into a series of jpegs (one per page). Its the only
tool I've found to do this at a good enough resolution.

What about GraphicsMagick. The package seems to be not very easy to use
even if a COM ActiveX object is available for Windows and there is an
executable with command line interface, but the documentation is poor.
Originally derived from ImageMagick 5.5.2 it is available at:
http://www.graphicsmagick.org/

I would be glad to hear how to do convert a PDF into a series of jpegs
if it will become possible using it.

PythonMagick interface to ImageMagick seems to be no more supported and
if I remember it right, there was shortly a thread about it not really
helping to work with it on Python 2.4.2 - that is how I came to know
about GraphicsMagick.

Hope GraphicsMagick can what ImageMagick could, so this hint turns out
useful.

Claudio

 

[Do Re Mi chel La Si Do]

+1

Michel Claveau

 

[Adam Endicott]

I'm not sure I understand. What would be the benefit of GraphicsMagick
over ImageMagick? I looked around the site, and it talks about using
the same PythonMagick, with the same link to procoders.net.

I'm actually using Python 2.3, so any issues with 2.4.2 won't be a
problem.

 

[Shane Hathaway]

I am using PIL for some other things, but what I need ImageMagick for
is to convert a PDF into a series of jpegs (one per page). Its the only
tool I've found to do this at a good enough resolution.

FWIW: I tried PythonMagick for a while, but soon found that large or
complex images caused it to consume excessive memory and sometimes
crash, taking my application with it. I switched to the command line
interface to isolate my application from problems in
Graphics/ImageMagick. Everything ended up much more robust that way,
and the time cost is small--it's on the order of milliseconds.

Shane

 

[Adam Endicott]

I actually did some more fiddling around with it, and I think I can do
what I need with ghostscript, bypassing ImageMagick altogether. It also
appears to be *much* faster.

 

[Terry Hancock]

I actually did some more fiddling around with it, and I
think I can do what I need with ghostscript, bypassing
ImageMagick altogether. It also appears to be *much*
faster.

If you look closer, you will see that this is in fact how
ImageMagick does it -- Postscript and PDF rendering is
delegated to ghostscript. So naturally, calling it directly
is faster.

Cheers,
Terry