MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg100270] Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]
  • From: "Scot T. Martin" <smartin at>
  • Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 04:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <6147782.1243412890107.JavaMail.root@n11> <>

I'm taking a look at the new V7 Image[] command, and I'm left a bit 

1. Is Image[] any different than Graphics[Raster[]] that I'm more 
accustomed to?

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.?

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.

Anyone out there to make the case that Image[] represents an important new 
capability? 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!

  • Prev by Date: Re: formatting of string in input vs. output cells
  • Next by Date: Better version of V3 of Mathematica Book?
  • Previous by thread: Re: new to group - Chemical Equation
  • Next by thread: Re: Image[], Graphics[Raster[]]