Problem reading non-square XBM in 6.6

Post any defects you find in the released or beta versions of the ImageMagick software here. Include the ImageMagick version, OS, and any command-line required to reproduce the problem. Got a patch for a bug? Post it here.
Post Reply
e-schr
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-02-02T15:05:24-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308

Problem reading non-square XBM in 6.6

Post by e-schr »

My version of Imagemagick seems to have problems reading XBM

Specifically the XBM’s from Anthony’s icons Library, as an example this 64x54 image:
http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/anthony/ ... endar2.xbm

When performing an operation on it, Imagemagick will always output the image so that it’s a square, and fill in the remaining canvas with black.
I first thought it was a problem scaling, but it manifests itself also if we simply convert an image 1 on 1:

Code: Select all

$ convert calendar2.xbm calendar2.png
(i tried this with tiff and pbm too).

Result:

Image

I’ve ran into this on two machines, both OSX 10.6.5, running ImageMagick 6.6.4-5
ImageMagick 6.5.7-8, running on Ubuntu 10.04, outputs the image fine.

Thanks for your attention,

Eric
Last edited by e-schr on 2011-02-04T13:44:51-07:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
magick
Site Admin
Posts: 11064
Joined: 2003-05-31T11:32:55-07:00

Re: Problem reading non-square XBM in 6.6

Post by magick »

We did the conversion with ImageMagick 6.6.7-4, the current release, and it returned the expected results (a 64x54 icon).
User avatar
anthony
Posts: 8883
Joined: 2004-05-31T19:27:03-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Problem reading non-square XBM in 6.6

Post by anthony »

I confirm it works.
Anthony Thyssen -- Webmaster for ImageMagick Example Pages
https://imagemagick.org/Usage/
e-schr
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-02-02T15:05:24-07:00
Authentication code: 8675308

Re: Problem reading non-square XBM in 6.6

Post by e-schr »

Thanks for your replies. Installing a newer version (6.6.7-1, via my package manager), indeed solves the problem.

Thanks, Eric
Post Reply