Legacy ImageMagick Discussions Archive

I know (as I already mentioned) that -resize is the option I wanted to use in the command above.

The problem is that if you use an option that cannot be applied in the context where it is used, an error or warning should be issued.

convert inputfile.jpg -size 50x50 output.jpg Expected behavior I guess -size only makes sense as an input option. If so, then the above command should issue an error or a warning. Actually I think it would be even better to treat -size as a synonim of -resize when used as output option. Observed ...

That is the way IM "convert" (and most other IM commands) are designed to work, And I think that is a serious design flaw (in the cases when it is not strictly needed). and is appropriate in most situations. I don't think it's ever "appropriate" to use N times as much memory as needed (being N the ...

Oh I see: maybe it's ghostscript (or something) (called by imagemagick) that gets killed, right?

Then maybe the issue I'm observing is a different one? Because in this case it doesn't look like imagemagick gets kiled at all. It terminates with a lot of error messages. In one case I did observed it being killed and it only said "killed" without any error message at all. But here what I'm talking ...

This has nothing to do with killing. I m not talking about imagemagick getting killed. ThT was another post. This is not related. The question here is why allocating memory piece by piece if the total amount needed is known in advance and the task cannot be completed unless all the memory can be ...

But then, instead of "asking" for available memory and later take it (when in the meantime it has become unavailable), can't you just "take" it from the beginning?

I mean, regarding the first part of my original post (the bogus error messages).

No, I'm not talking about the "killed" error message here. I get strange error messages that are clearly generated by ImageMagick, not the OS.

Even if the failure to allocate is due to the OS, ImageMagick should output a meaningful error message.

Oh I see!!!! Thanks a lot

When I try to process huge images, I often get a variety of apparently nonsense error messages. I guess the problem is just that I don't have enough memory (since identical operations on smaller images succeed), so some memory allocation fails causing subsequent errors. Such errors should be ...

Consider this command: imagemagick -crop 128x128 srcimage.png dstimage.png I ran this with a big source image (about 14,000x12,000 pixels) and it ran for about 20 minutes before failing. There's no unpredictable factor affecting the memory needed to perform such an operation; the amount of memory ...

I was cropping a huge image into small pieces with: convert -crop 128x128 sourceimage.png outputimage.png After 20 minutes of processing, it ended up with the error message "Killed" (not a word more than that), and no file was output. "Killed" is not an acceptable error message. "Out of memory", or ...

When you use -crop WxH (without offsets) to produce a sequence of "tiles" form a big image, ImageMagick accumulates all the output images into memory and doesn't start writing the first file unill the last output image is complete. This has 2 huge drawbacks: (1) it wastes an enormous amount of ...

Well, yes, definitely, that's how it works. And yes, very sadly, even cropping out a single piece will require processing the whole pdf. Even repaging to a virtual canvas of the same size of the crop doesn't do the trick. Is there a way at all to render a small region of a vector image with high ...