[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg100338] Re: Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]
*From*: "Luc Barthelet" <luc at tirnua.com>
*Date*: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:09:33 -0400 (EDT)
I think that the documentation on how to integrate graphics and images
from the new image processing features in V7 is not to par with the rest
of the documentation. Image Processing feels a bit of an orphan in V7,
it makes sense, since it is new.
Some suggestions:
1- guide/CombiningGraphics could show how to use an image in a
Graphics[] or as a background of a plot
3 - "Basic Image Processing tutorial ", "Image", "Import" could
demonstrate our to mix images and graphics
2- "Import","Show","Graphics","Inset" documentations could explain more
clearly that Import[filename,"Graphics"] will import a file the old way
and show examples of integration.
Luc
-----Original Message-----
From: Jens-Peer Kuska [mailto:kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:33 AM
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Subject: [mg100338] [mg100284] Re: Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]
Hi,
>
> 1. Is Image[] any different than Graphics[Raster[]] that I'm more
> accustomed to?
No it has a fixed data range, i.e., "Byte" is [0,255], "Real" [0,1]
while Graphics[Raster[]] can handle undestructive every thing.
>
> 2. If not, what was the point of introducing Image[]? Was it any
effort to
> provide a more streamlined set of commands all revolving around
Image[],
> e.g., ImageRotate[], etc.?
The reason was a faster display of the bitmap. With fixed data range
the FE don't have to do a scaling of every pixel.
>
>
> 3. Image[] somehow upsets my unified view of Mathematica. That is, I
like
> to try to "think" like Mathematica, and so I understand that all
commands
> like Plot[], ListPlot[], etc., reduce to a Graphics[] object in
> FullForm[]. Similarly, I can build my own type of plotting function
with
> Graphics[]. Most importantly, I can combine many different types of
> objects into a single Graphics[]. Am I correct that Image[] represents
> then a completely new display object? If so, is there a way, for
example,
> to have an Image[] and then draw across it with an Epilog rule like
you
> can do with Graphics[]? It seems a major setback if Image[] and
Graphics[]
> cannot be readily mixed.
>
Oh mixing is easy:
img = Import["http://www.stephenwolfram.com/img/home/sw-portrait.jpg";]
Graphics[
{Image`ToGraphicsRaster[img][[1]],
Circle[{110.5, 110.5}, 10]}]
draw a circle on the image.
> Anyone out there to make the case that Image[] represents an important
new
> capability?
No, it make many things more complicated, and a lot of image
processing tasks impossible -- registration for example ..
I see it as a little worse than the usual "new command that
> does same thing old stuff did" because it seems to lose the capability
to
> mix Graphics[] and Image[].
>
> Please inform me if I'm completely off base. As I said, I'm just
digging
> into Image[] now for the first time, and I'm a bit confused about
possible
> merits---please do inform!
There is no merit, it make many things worse than the original
Graphics[Raster[]]
Regards
Jens
Prev by Date:
**Re: Perpendicular lines do not appear perpendicular**
Next by Date:
**Re: two questions**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]**
Next by thread:
**Re: Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]**
| |