# Image Science vs. RMagick

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/image-science-vs-rmagick/103088>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [May 1, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/image-science-vs-rmagick/103088 "2007-05-01T17:48:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/image-science-vs-rmagick/103088/1 "2007-05-01T17:48:22Z")

</div>

I’m looking at possibly going with Image Science (http://  
[seattlerb.rubyforge.org/ImageScience.html](http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/ImageScience.html)) for an application in  
development. I’ve heard that it is a lot less overhead than RMagick  
and we really don’t have any complex image requirements. Are there  
any folks out there using Image Science that could chime in with some  
feedback? Also, I have a couple specific questions:

1. Can Image Science dynamically create images without creating files  
in the filesystem? For example, if I want to dynamically render an  
image with different size constraints but only want the original file  
in the filesytem.

2. Can Image Science apply any compression to .jpg’s?

Thanks,  
Tom