Re: GD code

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Marko Karppinen wrote: > I don't actually think that code is useful at all. > My reasoning: > > - main advantage of the jpeg format is 24bit colors. the > code I saw won't give that to us. Instead, we get > worst of both worlds -- 8bit color with lossy compression. > > - JPEG isn't useful for the kind of imagery usually produced > by GD. Sure, if we include a photo, it's okay, but the > fact that the photo still has to be 8bit introduces > dithering and/or banding that essentially kills the JPEG > compression algorithm. So, no luck there either. 200%-ly agreed. > - The marketing-guy perspective for this is that we shouldn't > introduce a feature we know will suck and be of use in few > situations. Bottom line: people are going to be saying > "PHP's JPEG support? It sucks so bad" for ages if we go > with this The possible alternatives, as I see the situation being with current GD, are: 1. Try to educate people not to upgrade their GD-lib, or if they accidentally do it, to find their backup tapes or to find the sources for an older version of GD from some public ftp-server that still has it. This option sucks. 2. Use the new GD-lib as is, support only PNG and forget those older browsers that don't understand it. This option sucks. 3. Send the image as an ugly, inferior quality JPEG. This option sucks. Any more positive ideas? Jouni