-
Welcome to the Chevereto User Community!
Here, users from all over the world come together to learn, share, and collaborate on everything related to Chevereto. It's a place to exchange ideas, ask questions, and help improve the software.
Please keep in mind:
- This community is user-driven. Always be polite and respectful to others.
- Support development by purchasing a Chevereto license, which also gives you priority support.
- Go further by joining the Community Subscription for even faster response times and to help sustain this space
Do we have an option to choose for "Default image processor"?
- Thread starter rdn
- Start date
V3 uses GD, V4 will use *not sure yet* but in any case it won't be GD (and it won't be optional).
Everytime you add an alternative for a process like that you open problems derivated from the need of having two different systems trying to do the same. I'm aware that many devs like that way of doing things, but it only looks good on the paper. In the practice, it is just unnecessary extra trouble.
Regarding V4 image library, there are plenty other libraries available and V4 won't be constrained to what PHP allows to use out of the box. Most likely we will use a dedicated library, with FFI.
Everytime you add an alternative for a process like that you open problems derivated from the need of having two different systems trying to do the same. I'm aware that many devs like that way of doing things, but it only looks good on the paper. In the practice, it is just unnecessary extra trouble.
Regarding V4 image library, there are plenty other libraries available and V4 won't be constrained to what PHP allows to use out of the box. Most likely we will use a dedicated library, with FFI.
I didn't say that 🤔 and based on what I've seen it can't be just one library. While some libs do great transformations, it doesn't perform nicely on compression, or the support for a given format is not perfect, etc.
I'm looking for a composite tool and I won't be limited to PHP (imagick is the PHP API for ImageMagick) because V4 will ship its own server, we can install whatever we may need.
What means "own server" ? How will that work ?
Would it not be wise to integrate imagick-support anyway as it is available almost with any webhoster, VPS oder dedicated server ?
Right now as GD is processing the watermark there is a horrible loss on image quality which makes it necessary to watermark and resize b4 uploading to get a good image quality. I run several Xenforos and use Imagick and the quality is overall always satisfying..even when watermarking, resizing or compressing.
EDIT: It would be great to get a kind of "patch" or "addin" to upgrade even V. 3.x with Imagick !
Would it not be wise to integrate imagick-support anyway as it is available almost with any webhoster, VPS oder dedicated server ?
Right now as GD is processing the watermark there is a horrible loss on image quality which makes it necessary to watermark and resize b4 uploading to get a good image quality. I run several Xenforos and use Imagick and the quality is overall always satisfying..even when watermarking, resizing or compressing.
EDIT: It would be great to get a kind of "patch" or "addin" to upgrade even V. 3.x with Imagick !
Own server means that all the server software required to run the application will be provisioned by us. It will work with a spec and docker images. That way, no matter where you run the application it will work the same because we will tag PHP, DB, Redis, everything to be on the same spec so we won't have to deal with conflicts caused by server setups.
The priority is V4 development and at some point I will decide on what image library we will use for it. There's a really small chance in that we will keep using php-APIs for image processing in V4.
Of course, how else? Vagrant? 🤣