By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,605 Members | 2,012 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,605 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
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.

Jul 1 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a

Summercooln...@gmail.com wrote:
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()

Jul 1 '06 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.