Get geometry of text on an image

I'd like to draw a text onto an image in a way like this:

convert -quality 100 -font Oswald-Regular -pointsize 515 -fill black -draw "text 1339.0,1099 'some text'" /tmp/ascript.png /tmp/ascript.png

and I need to know the dimensions of the text with the above parameters (size, font, text). How can I get that?

I tried something like this:

convert -size 5000x1500 xc:lightblue -font Oswald-Regular -pointsize 515 -fill none -undercolor white -annotate +20+100 'some text' -trim  info:

but it's giving false result:

xc:lightblue XC 1834x250 5000x1500+19+0 16-bit sRGB 0.010u 0:00.000

What is the proper way (or a working way) to get the dimension of a drawn image based on this 3 parameters (font, size, text)?

I'm not strictly binded to ImageMagick, it can be any command line tool for the Linux shell, however, the text will be drawn by convert.

Solution

There are a couple simple ways to get the dimensions using ImageMagick with commands like this...

convert -size 5000x1500 xc:lightblue -font Oswald-Regular -pointsize 515 \
    -fill none -undercolor white -annotate +20+100 'some text' \
    -format "%[@]\n" info:

That uses the FX escape "%@" as the formatting string for the "info:" output. It will show IM's calculation of the after-trim width, height, horizontal offset, and vertical offset like "WxH+X+Y".

This similar command just gives the width and height of the trimmed text...

convert -size 5000x1500 xc:lightblue -font Oswald-Regular -pointsize 515 \
    -fill none -undercolor white -annotate +20+100 'some text' \
    -trim +repage -format "%[w]x%[h]\n" info:

That will trim the text, reset the paging geometry with "+repage", then output a string showing "WxH".

––– Edited to Add –––

I tried your image with_text.png with these commands. The output immediately follows each command...

convert with_text.png -format "%[@]\n" info:
1807x389+512+115

convert with_text.png -trim +repage -format "%[w]x%[h]\n" info:
1807x389

Those were tested with IMv6.8.9-9 on ubuntu bash on Windows 10. If you use that actual image and those commands, I'm not sure why you would get different results.