In 2,1, is it possible to enable watermarking. If you use ImageMagick its pretty simple when viewing an image to add a png watermark to an image. This would be really useful on the fly so we dont have to mess up the originals.
Boy, this would be really welcome.
X3Photo Gallery Forums
X3 Photo Gallery Support Forums
Watermarks?5 posts
Ofcourse it's quite possible both with ImageMagick and GD, and more than that we have some plans on integration but dont ask me about time frames yet.
Also we were "avoiding" ImageMagick, but I see more people popping up knowing what is it and ready to use it, so you can expect some changes in this area.
Also about keeping original image intact - this gets easier with ImageMagick because then we can process images directly from camera and just resize into something viewable on screen.
But with power comes resposibility, originals should be stored securely, processed somehow, then re-processed (re-watermaked) when needed. This immediately turning simple gallery into something much more advanced both to use and to set up than we initially planned.
Secure storage.. .htaccess you say? What about windows? CGI PHP?
Everything asks for some ImagevuePro, but I'm not sure about that.
Also we were "avoiding" ImageMagick, but I see more people popping up knowing what is it and ready to use it, so you can expect some changes in this area.
Also about keeping original image intact - this gets easier with ImageMagick because then we can process images directly from camera and just resize into something viewable on screen.
But with power comes resposibility, originals should be stored securely, processed somehow, then re-processed (re-watermaked) when needed. This immediately turning simple gallery into something much more advanced both to use and to set up than we initially planned.
Secure storage.. .htaccess you say? What about windows? CGI PHP?
Everything asks for some ImagevuePro, but I'm not sure about that.
firedev.com
I think it would be a nice feature to add watermarking on-the-fly. Just keep in mind the following:
# Adding watermark to a JPG will recompress the JPG. That means the JPG you uploaded at a fair compression, will be re-compressed when adding a watermark on-the-fly.
The way to avoid any extreme visual degeneration, would be to upload your originals at relatively high quality 90% or higher. Certainly requires some "attention"...
# Adding watermark on-the-fly would slow down the viewing experience, because before every image loads, the watermark overlay needs to be processed onto image from server. Of course, some still consider this a crucial benefit.
# Speaking for GD at least(which is globally available, unlike imagemagick), I think it can only append watermarks on images below certain size, because of server memory limit. Normally, this is something below 1280x1024 ...
# Adding watermark to a JPG will recompress the JPG. That means the JPG you uploaded at a fair compression, will be re-compressed when adding a watermark on-the-fly.
The way to avoid any extreme visual degeneration, would be to upload your originals at relatively high quality 90% or higher. Certainly requires some "attention"...
# Adding watermark on-the-fly would slow down the viewing experience, because before every image loads, the watermark overlay needs to be processed onto image from server. Of course, some still consider this a crucial benefit.
# Speaking for GD at least(which is globally available, unlike imagemagick), I think it can only append watermarks on images below certain size, because of server memory limit. Normally, this is something below 1280x1024 ...
# Loading watermarked images "on-the-fly" wouldn't really protect your original files though just because they are not loaded into the gallery - They would still be available in accessible folders. If you wanted true protection, you would have to watermark them and overwrite. You could perhaps keep originals in some secured folder, but what reason would they have to exist if they were not to be used?temabu wrote:This would be really useful on the fly so we dont have to mess up the originals.
What about just visual watermark? not actually hard coding it into the image - just overlaying it on top of the image... i guess if some one will download the image it will not have the watermark on it this way, but on screen it will look and in screen capture too.
I would love such an option to put a logo on all viewable images without saving them with it first.
cheers.
I would love such an option to put a logo on all viewable images without saving them with it first.
cheers.
[url=http://www.polytown.co.il][color=orange][b]Polytown[/b][/color] - Architectural visualization, Computer rendering, 3D modeling[/url]
That option is there already. Imagelayerbakbek wrote:What about just visual watermark? not actually hard coding it into the image - just overlaying it on top of the image... i guess if some one will download the image it will not have the watermark on it this way, but on screen it will look and in screen capture too.
I would love such an option to put a logo on all viewable images without saving them with it first.
cheers.
