Talk:ImageMagick

File formats

Could there be a regrouping of supported file format since more focus seems to be put on this than the actual program. Would be nice to get into a more detailed section explaining what are the main features of this software, advantages vs. limitations w/o comparing with other softwares. Lincher 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Unless there are any objections I'd propose deleting the list of file formats altogether. Anyone who's that interested can check out the ImageMagick website. Thrapper 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Scripts

Can we have some nifty imagemagick oneline scripts here too ?

Removed DOC from list of supported formats

I couldn't find it on the list on their website, so I got rid of it. I haven't checked to see if the list is synced otherwise though. -- Gnewf 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Need something here

I'm not in love with replacing pages with giant copyright violation pages. How long has this page just been a large C? Mathiastck 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I, for that matter, but copyright violations are bad for Wikipedia. (I tagged the article 18:46 (UTC), 21 August 2006.) Feel free to contribute to the temporary page in the meantime. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the temp page complete enough to replace the HUGE copyright box? EAi 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an admin should be around shortly, if there is not a backlog. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-Reference

I suspect that the part about Wikipedia's use of ImageMagick is more of a self-reference than something that should be included in the article. Don't a lot of websites use ImageMagick. I know that Flickr used to. If it is a technology very commonly used by websites, then the special mention of Wikipedia/Mediawiki is unwarranted. Theshibboleth 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the 14th most popular website in the entire world. Wikipedia using it is approximately equivalent to Google, Myspace, Youtube, or Microsoft using it. This isn't a self-reference problem. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

GUI

It says "An X Window GUI front end for ImageMagick exists, in addition to a command line version."... ok, what's their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Towsonu2003 (talk) on 01:53 GMT, 31 October 2006

Details of a simple to use interface for ImageMagick are desperately needed, because even trying to figure out what to download and install from the website is a hard puzzle for non-geeks. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've written some stuff at Wikibooks: b:Knowing Knoppix/Other applications#ImageMagick — there hasn't been much related to ImageMagick on Wikibooks before. Nevertheless, Google is one place to start from. -Mardus (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The ImageMagick home page is also a good place to start, at least it's more organized. -Mardus (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article

and where did the article go? 194.186.150.249 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted by Eagle 101. --Zundark 14:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanding

how to use it from the commandline with example commands would be great here. Towsonu2003 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur Don the Dev 23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can do that. I will look into it later. I certainly agree that this article could use expansion in several areas, this is a significant piece of software that is an integral part of many systems. Sam Barsoom (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

License

ImageMagick is not licensed under the GPL. By looking at the license page, it appears to be a modified BSD license or something similar. Nonetheless, the license is compatible with the GNU GPL. If anyone has any preference for the wording, then go ahead. Otherwise, I'll be back later to work on it. --Hamitr 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently the page lists APL 2.0 as the license for ImageMagick. This is not actually true, as ImageMagick is licensed under its own license as Hamitr correctly noted, but the license is identical to APL 2.0 (except very minor formatting changes and the addition of a copyright notice for "ImageMagick Studio LLC" that appears to claim copyright in the license - which seems absurd to me), to the point of copying the "how to apply this license to other software" section. I think it is best for the Wikipedia article to reflect this issue and not gloss over it - but I have no idea how I would go about formatting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guss77 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Free software: ImageMagick now the selected article

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Xvid - the mpeg4 video library. --Gronky 11:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, things have moved on. Open Source Tripwire is the new selectee. It's an interesting intrusion detection system that detects file changes by comparing stored signatures. --Gronky 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

PerlMagick

There is no reason at all that perlmagick should be called out specially as a binding. Either all of the bindings needs to be listed, or a simple statement, such as "Binds to many common languages exist," should be there instead. 24.58.154.67 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are bindings for Ada, C, PHP, Python and many others: [1]. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

History

The article is sorely missing a history of the program. When was it originally written, when did Christy get DuPont to relinquish its rights, and so on. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Program was made in 1991 [2] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xchmelmilos (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Added to infobox. Gioto (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree. As it reads now, the "History" of the program is solely limited to finding an exploit in 2016. This needs to be extensively expanded. B. Polhemus (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is better, GD or ImageMagick?

Which library is more professional for processing images? If one of them is better than the other is there any one better than the one better among these ones? Better I mean more professional, let it be a little bit complex but much more powerful.

File formats

This article would be more useful if it included a simple list of file formats supported.-96.233.19.238 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Depending of which version of ImageMagick you are using, there are nearly 240 file formats supported. It might be nice to have a table of all of them . . . but that would be a fairly large table. To get a list of all supported file types, one can simply execute the following command (on Linux, at least): identify -list format (and it might be better/easier to just list that command in the article). --Thorwald (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)