php.net |  support |  documentation |  report a bug |  advanced search |  search howto |  statistics |  random bug |  login

go to bug id or search bugs for

Request #66887 imagescale - poor quality of scaled image
Submitted: 2014-03-12 08:23 UTC Modified: 2014-03-12 16:16 UTC
From: mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl Assigned: remi (profile)
Status: Closed Package: GD related
PHP Version: 5.5.10 OS: openSUSE 13.1
Private report: No CVE-ID: None
View Developer Edit
 [2014-03-12 08:23 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
Description:
------------
Is it intended behavior that the quality of http://www.php.net/function.imagescale is much worse than http://www.php.net/function.imagecopyresampled ? 

I'm using PHP 5.5.9, but see in the PHP 5.5.10 changelog nothing on this issuse was changed.

Test script:
---------------
$oryginal = imagecreatefromjpeg('test.jpg');

$img = imagecreatetruecolor(300, 200);
imagecopyresized($img, $oryginal, 0, 0, 0, 0, 300, 200, 600, 400);
imagejpeg($img, 'test1.jpg', 90);
echo '<img src="test1.jpg" /><br />';

$img = imagescale($oryginal, 300, 200);
imagejpeg($img, 'test2.jpg', 90);
echo '<img src="test2.jpg" /><br />';

Patches

Pull Requests

History

AllCommentsChangesGit/SVN commitsRelated reports
 [2014-03-12 08:28 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
Or even http://www.php.net/function.imagecopyresized
 [2014-03-12 09:20 UTC] [email protected]
-Status: Open +Status: Feedback
 [2014-03-12 09:20 UTC] [email protected] 
imagescale has many different algorithms, some are good for downscaling other for upscaling. Performance differs too from one to another.

Try other algorithms and use the right one depending on what you want to do. Also having an example image may help to answer. Can you post a link to one?
 [2014-03-12 10:02 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
I resized to 600x400:
http://mruz.pl/test/test1.jpg (imagecopyresized)
http://mruz.pl/test/test2.jpg (imagescale)
http://mruz.pl/test/test.jpg (oryginal)

If I apply white background after imagescale():
imagecolorallocatealpha($background, r, g, b, $opacity);
imagealphablending($background, true);
imagecopy($background, $img, 0, 0, 0, 0, $width, $height)

is much worse..
http://mruz.pl/test/test3.jpg (background after imagescale)
 [2014-03-12 10:20 UTC] [email protected] 
Please ignore the background call. It is totally unrelated to this problem. JPEG does not have alpha, so could you please using only the scale function and compare the results?

See http://www.php.net/imagesetinterpolation for the different algorithms available.
 [2014-03-12 10:37 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
$algs = [
IMG_BELL,
IMG_BESSEL,
IMG_BICUBIC,
IMG_BICUBIC_FIXED,
IMG_BILINEAR_FIXED,
IMG_BLACKMAN,
IMG_BOX,
IMG_BSPLINE,
IMG_CATMULLROM,
IMG_GAUSSIAN,
IMG_GENERALIZED_CUBIC,
IMG_HERMITE,
IMG_HAMMING,
IMG_HANNING,
IMG_MITCHELL,
IMG_POWER,
IMG_QUADRATIC,
IMG_SINC,
IMG_NEAREST_NEIGHBOUR,
IMG_WEIGHTED4,
IMG_TRIANGLE,
];

foreach ($algs as $key => $alg) {
    $img = imagescale($oryginal, 600, 400, $alg);
    imagejpeg($img, 'tmp'.$key.'.jpg', 90);
    echo '<img src="tmp'.$key.'.jpg" /><br />';
}

All images are the same...
 [2014-03-12 10:55 UTC] [email protected] 
and which result do you get? link pls
 [2014-03-12 11:02 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
Sorry, http://mruz.pl/test/tmp0.jpg , available file names: tmp[0-20].jpg
 [2014-03-12 11:12 UTC] [email protected] 
Looks like a bug.

Which gd do you use? Bundled or system? See phpinfo

I also need to know which architecture you use (cpu)
 [2014-03-12 11:18 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
Bundled, x86_64
 [2014-03-12 13:54 UTC] [email protected] 
Can you try with 
    imagesetinterpolation($oryginal, $alg);
    $img = imagescale($oryginal, 600, 400);

$alg option of imagescale is ignored (yes, this is a "goto fail;" bug)

It seems IMG_BILINEAR_FIXED produce this bad quality image.
IMG_BICUBIC_FIXED and IMG_NEAREST_NEIGHBOUR seems to work better.
 [2014-03-12 14:24 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
Yes, if I run imagesetinterpolation before imagescale it works fine.

In this case IMG_BILINEAR_FIXED and IMG_WEIGHTED4 not look nice, the rest of the algorithms is OK.
 [2014-03-12 14:31 UTC] [email protected] 
New bug #66893 open for ignored parameter.

Keeping this one for "poor quality" using default / IMG_BILINEAR_FIXED method.
 [2014-03-12 14:49 UTC] mruz at poczta dot onet dot pl 
Thanks, I did update the tmp images, if anyone would like to see them:
http://mruz.pl/test/tmp4.jpg (IMG_BILINEAR_FIXED)
 [2014-03-12 16:16 UTC] [email protected]
-Assigned To: +Assigned To: remi
 [2014-03-12 16:16 UTC] [email protected]
-Status: Feedback +Status: Closed
 [2014-03-12 16:16 UTC] [email protected] 
Fixed in http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=commitdiff;h=862c006da178e3bb2a247b76b19d72d338efc0bd
 
PHP Copyright © 2001-2025 The PHP Group
All rights reserved. 		Last updated: Fri Jun 13 07:01:39 2025 UTC