If a system has ImageMagick available, we should use it.
e.g. WordPress uses ImageMagick if the PHP module is available, in addition to GD Graphic Library – offering extra functionality (such as PDF thumbnails) and better image manipulation and better image quality/optimisation that ImageMagick has over GD.
This becomes more attractive when coupled with the plans we have for an image grid, see #8 - as we need to batch process existing images into usable thumbnails.
Obviously this should be part of a wider rewrite of the images code. It also opens the door to in-browser editing of images via the images edit panel (those features probably left to a plugin, apart from the basics like rotate).
The CMS can fallback to GD Graphic Library with a reduced feature set if ImageMagick not available.
If a system has ImageMagick available, we should use it.
e.g. WordPress uses ImageMagick if the PHP module is available, in addition to GD Graphic Library – offering extra functionality (such as PDF thumbnails) and better image manipulation and better image quality/optimisation that ImageMagick has over GD.
This becomes more attractive when coupled with the plans we have for an image grid, see #8 - as we need to batch process existing images into usable thumbnails.
Obviously this should be part of a wider rewrite of the images code. It also opens the door to in-browser editing of images via the images edit panel (those features probably left to a plugin, apart from the basics like rotate).
The CMS can fallback to GD Graphic Library with a reduced feature set if ImageMagick not available.