I am searching for a performant way to generate a PNG based on a layout. These layouts will mostly consist of text and a 1-2 icons. The Datasource for these informations is JSON. However, the JSON won't be normalized to fit the Layout/Screen size. Let me clarify: The JSON will contain an attribute "Title". The title may be too long, so the font size has to be decreased. Or the description has too many attributes and only some of them need to be displayed, and so on.
We currently have a system in place for creating these layouts and generating a PNG, but creating new layouts is very time consuming and frankly speaking, a pain. However, the current solution is extremely performant, as it can generate a PNG in around 1-2ms. For my PoC to be deemed successful, i need to reach 10ms or lower. If there is a solution that takes slightly longer to generate, but can be scaled horizontally, that's fine as well.
TL;DR:
I'm searching for a way to generate a PNG based on a layout i create. The PNG generation needs to be performant (< 10ms) and the implementation of new layouts should be as hassle free as possible.
What technologies are suited for this use case?
Here is an example, of what a layout might look like:
Edit: I can't post images yet, but please search for "electronic shelf labeling" on google images.
Also:
I've already made a similar question yesterday, but it was pointed out that my way of trying to achieve this, probably won't lead to success. Original Post
Related
I have (or, rather, will soon have) a number of maps created in ArcGIS 10.0 and exported as PDF documents. The maps all show contiguous areas, being rather like the pages in a map book. There will also be a smaller-scale map depicting the entire area (let's call it the "study area"), but with less detail, rather like that page of a map atlas that shows what page depicts what area.
I wonder if there is any way to create thumbnails of the larger-scale maps and mosaic them such as to create an index map of the study area. A user would then be able to see, for a particular point on the smaller-scale map, which of the larger-scale maps depicts that part of the study area. (And perhaps see that map by clicking on the larger map?) Does anyone have any ideas I can implement this? I would prefer exporting the maps in PDF format, but, if I can't do all of the above with PDF, then any other format to which a map can be exported from ArcGIS, such as JPG or TIF, will work.
You should be able to create a PDF which does this.
What you need to do is render each page to a small image.
Then collect each of these images and add them as a mosaic to an index page.
Then put links from each small image back to the original PDF page.
If the hierarchy was more than one level deep you could repeat the process.
You need a PDF component to do this. What you want in terms of features is something which does decent PDF rendering. It's an easy thing to do badly and a difficult thing to do well.
ABCpdf .NET does good quality rendering so it's what I would suggest, but then I would because I work on it. :-)
What language or technology would I need to be able to create documents online? I want to be able to add text and images and move them into position, resize etc, similar to this.
And then when complete, create a PDF from them.
Sorry if this is a bit vague, I just need to know where to start researching.
You need to decide on your basic technology: Flash, Silverlight, Canvas, client-side SVG, server-side SVG or server-side bitmap. There are also commercial solutions that work with Adobe InDesign documents (and probably a host of other proprietary formats) but I'd expect those not to be cheap.
Flash/Silverlight require plugins, and are considered by some to be a dying technology - though I am sure that is disputed. Canvas is 'very HTML5' and is essentially a bitmap built/rendered on the client, but if you are ultimated rendering to PDF it may not provide the resolution you need. The same limitation affects building an image server-side too - you should probably be dealing with vector elements plus bitmaps, rather than rendering everything to pixels as you go.
That leaves SVG in my list, either on the client (see RaphaelJS) or on the server (see Inkscape). I'm doing some work with server-side SVG rendering at the moment, and it is promising; although subject to more scalability issues than client-side, it doesn't suffer from browser-compatibility issues or the limitations of browser rendering.
The biggest issue in browser SVG rendering is flowed paragraph text and text in/on a path - I am not sure how well these are implemented in modern browsers, or how much agreement there is between them. This is especially the case given that some of these require SVG1.2, and browsers (afaik) are only just settling on SVG1.1, after many years. But, if you just want to do standard blocks of text, bitmaps and vector elements, browser-based SVG should suit you fine.
The example you've given uses a server-side technology (SVG, or perhaps a commercial format) and renders to low-res PNG on the client.
In your case, once you've considered how to 'do the editing', you'll need to consider how to render to PDF, which will be done on the server. You could go low-level and use something like FPDF, use a report renderer like Jasper, or use a graphics system like GhostScript, Inkscape, Scribus, ps2pdf, svg2pdf etc.
Aside: I normally don't answer questions without obvious prior research. But, since you've indicated that you will indeed undertake this, I'm happy to help get you started.
This may well be a little of an open-ended question
The site I am working on requires to be optimised for performance. One of the key areas is to optimise the file sizes of the images used upon the site.
Unfortunatley these images are being created by employees who do not have the required knowledge for creating images for the web, and it is my job to produce a set of guidelines for them to use.
I was wondering whether there was any resource/guidlines/literature regarding typical images file sizes for images of different dimensions - as I would like to include something like this to aid them to ensure their images are being created properly.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
I can't answer the opinion question, but I can suggest some guidelines that will keep your images smaller.
First off, if they're using Photoshop to edit their images, it's likely they're storing a whole bunch of crap in the headers (digital papertrail, EXIF data, and such). Also, folks will frequently save in too high a bit depth.
For novice users, trying to explain why they need to use "save for web" is more likely to confuse them. Instead, just point them at:
http://www.smushit.com/ysmush.it/
This site is rather handy - it will compress all the images on a page you specify, or you can upload the images.
You should strongly consider writing some guidelines about where images are stored as well. It's frequently very beneficial to have your static image content stored on several servers, apart from your dynamic content. Most browsers will only download a limited # of files at a time from any given website (usually it's 2).
Unless there's a good reason, all your images should be cached using one of the HTTP cache techniques (expires, etags, etc).
Good luck.
72 dpi as a resolution and either jpeg or png formats work best.
Try to use images at the exact pixel area size they will end up being displayed as. This is specified by the images height and width attributes.
You can set the output quality of a jpeg image which will also save file size although there is a trade off against image quality.
I hope this is of use.
We would like to display very large (50mb plus) images in Internet Explorer. We would like to avoid compression as compression algorithms are not what CSI would have us believe that they are and the resulting files are too lossy.
As a result, we have come up with two options: Silverlight Deep Zoom or a Flash based solution (such as Zoomify). The issue is that both of these require conversion to a tiled output and/or conversion to a specific file type (Zoomify supports a single proprietary file type, PFF).
What we are wondering is if a solution exists which will allow us to view the image without a conversion before hand.
PS: I know that you can write an application to tile the images (as needed or after the load process) and output them; however, we would like to do this without chopping up the file.
The tiled approach really is the right way to do it.
Your users don't want to download a 50mb file before they can start viewing the image. You don't want to spend the bandwidth to serve 50 megs to every user who might only view a fraction of your image.
If you serve the whole file, users will eventually be able to load and view it, but it won't run smoothly for most of them.
There is no simple non-tiled way to serve just a portion of an image unless you want to use a server-side library like imagemagik or PIL to extract a specific subset of the image for each user. You probably don't want to do that because it will place a significant load on your server.
Alternatively, you might use something like google's map tool to provide zooming and scaling. Some comments on doing that are available here:
http://webtide.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/custom-google-maps/
Take a look at OpenSeadragon. To make a image can work with OpenSeadragon, you should generate a zoomable image format which mentioned here. Then follow starting guide here
The browser isn't going to smoothly load a 50 meg file; if you don't chop it up, there's no reasonable way to make it not lag.
If you dont want to tile, you could have the server open the file and render a screen sized view of the image for display in the browser at the particular zoom resolution requested. This way you arent sending 50 meg files across the line when someone only wants to get an overview of the image. That is, the browser requests a set of coordinates and an output size in pixels, the server opens the larger image and creates a smaller image that fits the desired view, and sends that back to the web browser.
As far as compression, you say its too lossy, but if thats what you are seeing you are probably using the wrong compression algorithm or setting for the type of image you have. The jpg format has quality settings to control lossiness, and PNG compression is lossless (the pixels you get after decompressing are the exact values you had prior to compression). So consider changing what you are using as compression, and dont just rely on the default settings in an image editor.
For software development one often needs images. But when I start working on an image I very fast end up with dozens of versions, like so
Start with a nice large scale image, let's say a photo from my camera(x.nef)
I do some adjustments on exposure correction and white balance, convert it to a x.jpg
start to add some little stuff by copying in various pieces from two other images. (a.jpg, b.jpg resulting in a layered image x.pdn
now I scale it to the required size and save it as x_small.jpg
By now I have 6 different image files floating around, and nobody but me knows the process behind them.
So the question is: How do you handle images in the development process?
Edit:
Thx for all the great input. I combined various questions to my own personal best answer. But I accepted jiinx0r's answer because it really contained the missing idea for me to apply a naming convention for the kind of changes done.
You could just put your images under source control.
That would handle the revision history and notes. If you really need to keep all the transitional versions of the image around and don't want that in your project folder, most source control trees have a 'tools' area for that type of thing.
EDIT:
If what you're after is keeping track of the various sizes (thumbnails, etc), I would go with convention over configuration and implement a uniform file (or directory) naming system.
For instance, I would probably have seperate folders for the 100px and 500px versions of the same image. Or maybe I would put them in the same folder with a special naming convention: logo-100.jpg, and logo-500.jpg ...Either way is probably fine, just make a decision and be sure to stay consistent throughout the project.
One last thought: some folks like to include a ton of metadata in the file name. To me it depends on the scope of your operation and your individual needs. I would personally default to a less is more approach -- if you're thinking about investing in maintaining something like that (or creating a tool to do it for you), make sure it's actually a net gain of time and not just something for your OCD to filddle with!
As developers, we do tend to make glaring mistakes in this area. I know I've been guilty a bunch of times.
file naming should be handled via a naming convention.
{name}-{mod type}-{size}-{version}-{create date}.png
{name}-final.png
e.g.
file-white_balance-800x600-v01-20090831.png
file-white_balance-800x600-v02-20090831.png
file-final.jpg
the real point is to create an agreed on convention that people see the value in following
(however simple/complex is necessary for your group). In my organization we do this for input/output datafiles, images, scripts, etc. (not the same convention necessarily for all, but that they follow something that was agree upon)
Hope that helps.
I try hard to have only a single "source" image and then pour all the changes into a short Python script or some other piece of code so that I can recreate the effects and/or adjust them any time later.
The original image is saved either as PNG or TIFF (to avoid quality loss due by saving) and converted into the final type as the very last step. That's also the time when I do the scaling and other lossy operations.
We developed a downloadable and a web game with a few hundred graphic assets, most of which were stored as psd files during development. We needed jpg and and png versions for the release version of the game and lower quality jpg and png versions for the web version.
We checked the originals into source control to handle versioning.
In order to remain flexible and able to alter the original without having to re-pack the image twice after each update, we had a Perl / ImageMagick script that would update the packed images automatically.
The file name remained the same, but the compressed images would go to different directories, depending which version of the game each image was packed for.
We typically have the image title and resolution appended together in the name.
myimage_800_600.png
this way all of the like images are grouped together in the folder view and you can easily select the size you want without having to wander what "medium" means.
I agree in that source control might be your best bet for this. However conventional source control doesn't really fit images.
Have you looked at http://www.alienbrain.com ?
It's commercial but may be something that could help. I was also looking and saw something about Photoshop or Imageready having version control in it too. You could look into that.
I put all the bits and pieces together from the various answers, for a system that fits my needs:
Images go into source control. This includes images of or intermediate steps.
If multiple images are needed based on one source image, but with different transformations, this can be integrated into automatic builds (scaling, compressing, tinting)
Based on a naming convention or folder structure files can get categorized into: source (e.g. original photo), intermediate (for the various processing steps), base (an image that is actually used in the software or possible after automatic processing as in step 2)
For the processing steps, a naming convention should ensure that the kind of processing can be recognised, and also the order of steps. So one would be able to move from the source image through the various processing steps to the final image.