Last modified: 2006-05-10 23:34:26 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T7888, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 5888 - Quality of thumbnail images
Quality of thumbnail images
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
File management (Other open bugs)
PC Windows XP
: Normal normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-09 19:35 UTC by Bogdan Giuşcă
Modified: 2006-05-10 23:34 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Bogdan Giuşcă 2006-05-09 19:35:19 UTC
The thumbnails are not crisp enough -- they are blured: this is a comparison of the thumbnails generated by 
wikimedia and flickr, both of them from the same image source:
Comment 1 Jon 2006-05-09 19:47:00 UTC
what software does flickr use for thumbnailing? MediaWiki generally is
configured to use ImageMagick.
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2006-05-09 20:52:22 UTC
By amazing coincidence, the sharper version is also twice the file 
size, and thus twice the download time and twice the bandwidth cost.
Comment 3 Bogdan Giuşcă 2006-05-10 09:22:52 UTC
Sorry, Brion, the size has little to do with sharpness in this case.

I compressed the flickr image to have the same size as the wikimedia one:
Comment 4 Brion Vibber 2006-05-10 11:01:40 UTC
Your personal preference for artificially sharpened images is 
appreciated, but not particularly relevant.
Comment 5 Daniel Kinzler 2006-05-10 11:19:56 UTC
Perhaps the could be a configuration setting for the thumbnailing method and
quality used with ImageMagick. I don't think it needs to be changed for
Wikimedia projects, though.
Comment 6 Brion Vibber 2006-05-10 23:34:26 UTC
Daniel, it looks clearly like a sharpen filter to me. IMHO this 
tends to increase ugliness from artifacting, but perhaps there are 
some tradeoff improvements that could be made.

I'll go ahead and reopen this if some better techniques can be 
suggested; note that a trickier thing is handling smooth areas of 
images properly. Particularly subject to ugly artifacts are areas 
such as deep blue skies and the edges of buildings against them. 
Sharpening an already JPEG'd image might make these areas worse, 
especially if quality has to be turned down to make up for the 
extra space required by higher frequency sharpened parts of the 

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.