I had posted this earlier to the gimp-users list....Someone suggested that I may find an answer on this list. I am looking for an suggestion you can provide.

Matt Patterson matt@solinus.com

-- Forwarded message from matt@solinus.com -- Hello,

I am having an issue with a Script that I have written being called from the command line.

Here is what I am trying to do. I have written a script using Scheme that runs great when I have Gimp loaded up (ie not from the command line). No problems, does everything that I want. The real point of the script is to automate some image resizing from the command line. I know that many of you out there are going to point out that ImageMagick will do what I am looking for. I have already gone down that path and the image quality of the scaled images is not up
to the quality that client wants. However, I can make a better, smaller image using Gimp....now I just need to make it completely automated.

here is the rub.....

I have the script streamlined down and everything is set to be non-interactive. So i should just be able to pass in the variables and away we
go.... My thinking is obviously flawed here as it doesn't quite work.

here is how I am calling the script:....

gimp -b '(script-fu-automated-resize 1 "200" "200" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/Imagein.jpg" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/Imageout.jpg")' '(gimp-quit 0)'

The script takes in a height, width, beginning image and output image. I pass it a 1 before all of that for non-interactive. The script is designed to open the beginning image, resize accordingly, and then save to the output image.

I get the following response..... batch command: executed successfully.

One would think that I should be able to check my system and I should see the end image....nope....nada...nothing. If I change the option of 1 to 0 to run in
interactive mode...I get the prompt for the default values of the script. Height, Width, Image to process....final image. If I enter those in, click the ok button....it runs like a champ. What am I missing? I have the non-interactive bit set on the file open which I assume is what is causing this dialog to pop up.

Any ideas? tips? Pointer? References? Anyone already have a thumbnail script that works in this way that can shed some light on the subject?

Matt Patterson matt@solinus.com

-- end forwarded message --

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:15:42 -0000 (GMT), "Steinar H. Gunderson" wrote:

If you can't make an image in ImageMagick that is at least as good as what you get from The GIMP, you're doing something wrong. Have you tried specifying what kind of filter you want to use?

/* Steinar */

That's what I thought as well...but the scaling with imagemagick was causing pixelation. granted, it wasn't a lot of pixelation but the client that I am doing this for is having a problem with it. I tried specifying filters, scaled it every which way I could find documentation for on the imagemagick site. And I could get a good image, but not to the satisfaction of the customer. It appeared to be the way in which imagemagick scales the image as opposed to gimp. Gimp seems to handle it better. I would think it would be pretty much a wash but based on what i have coded up so far....it's not the case. At least not for the client who is really really picky about the pixelation.

Matt Patterson matt@solinus.com

I posted this to the users group and unfortunately did not read the reply-to correctly. I meant to send it over here. Here is the original message, reply and corrected attachment (for those who are also on the gimp-users list)

--Matt

-- Forwarded message from matt@solinus.com --
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 04:32:07 -0000 (GMT), wrote:

On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:35:36PM -0000, matt@solinus.com wrote:

image resizing from the command line. I know that many of you out there

are

going to point out that ImageMagick will do what I am looking for. I have already gone down that path and the image quality of the scaled images is

not up

Then you probably have done sth. wrong, as ImageMagick's algorithms are way superior (and way slower ;) to the mere cubic interpolation gimp uses.

Are you sure you tried sth. like:

convert sourcefile -filter mitchell -geometry destfile

ok, I tried this....and I got an image that was not up to par with what can be done with Adobe's Image ready doing a similiar process. However, with Gimp, I can produce an image that is better and smaller than what Image Ready and ImageMagick can do. The mitchell filter was better than the cubic filter by far...but they were still pixelated when you started to look at the images closely. I personally think the images are good enough for the web....however, the client that I am working for is accustom to having an image of a very high quality.

also, other filters than the mitchell filter (which is usually best) are also worth a try, "cubic" for example should rather closely match gimp's quality.

Well, I am no scirpt-fu expert, but I get a lot of mail that tells me that scirpt-fu simply doesn't work noninteractively, or at leats not correctly, or returns too earfly etc.. etc..

Ok, if script-fu is not meant to be run from the command line without interaction....then why the batch mode option?

from the gimp man pages.... -b, --batch
Execute the set of non-interactively. The set of is typically in the form of a script that can be executed by one of the Gimp scripting extensions.

Based on the documentation I have seen, I should be able to call a script-fu function and everything should work. That is not the case.

Attached is a cut down version of the script that I am attempting to call. I am calling this script from the command line as follows......

gimp -b '(script-fu-test-script 1 "200" "200" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/W-49M01_ven.jpg" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/W-49M01_ven_n.jpg")'

When this is run...I get back batch command: executed successfully.

However, there is no outputted image to be found. If I change the 1 to 0 to run interactivly, it pops up the prompt for me to enter in the values needed for the script and runs successfully. Is there any way of outputting what has been passed into a script?

Thoughts? Comments?

Matt Patterson matt@solinus.com

-- end forwarded message --