Re: GD vs Imagick

This is only part of a thread. view whole thread
  100329
August 31, 2017 00:46 ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)
Hi,

Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> The following GD issue is all-too common: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5773032/how-to-stop-gd2-from-washing-away-the-colors-upon-resizing-images > > Basically anyone who's ever accepted uploaded images and resized or > converted them, has bumped into this. > > Only Imagick makes it possible to work around this issue, it's not possible > with GD, at all - and the internal behavior of GD is arguably "wrong", as > the visible output of simply opening and saving a JPEG image with GD is > mangled with washed-out colors. > > I am starting to wonder why GD is the default in PHP? > > It's a pretty outdated library with a clunky API - we have Imagick with a > much more concise API and a ton more useful features. > > Why is the less-capable image library the default on the PHP platform? Why > not Imagick? >
Imagick is, as others have pointed out, huge and internally messy. GD is at least smaller. There's also a benefit to having just the one extension for image handling by default, it prevents fragmentation. For all its problems, I feel we are better off trying to improve GD than we are trying to tame the monster that is Imagick and bundling it. -- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/