[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
imread/imwrite
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
imread/imwrite |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:19:51 -0400 |
On 19-Jun-2008, Thomas L. Scofield wrote:
|
| If no one else is working on this, I would like to try my hand at
| implementing these functions in Octave.
|
| I've not contributed before, and I still haven't figured out
| mercurial on my Intel Mac with OS 10.4.11. So, I'll probably have
| questions along the way concerning these.
|
| I've followed discussions about imread/imwrite over the past 6 months
| or so, so I am aware of things like
|
| - these functions are already implemented in the image package,
| with special cases
| implemented for .png and .jpg files.
| - getting these functions into core Octave soon has been made a
| priority by John Eaton.
| - the general consensus has thus far been that the best compromise
| between ease
| of implementation and bloat is to employ the Magick++ library.
I think we should use the GraphicsMagick++ library since that seems to
have a stable interface.
| Is anyone else working on this? Has anyone worked on it privately
| and dropped it, but has useful information to share?
I only looked at it briefly without doing much actual work. I think
the place to start is the code in Octave Forge. To simplify the code
in Octave, I think I would would prefer to only use the
GraphicsMagick++ interface and drop the special cases.
| Dumb question from someone who hasn't used libraries for programming
| in a long time: Does anyone ever remove chunks of code from a library
| to produce a smaller library? If it is even possible, does this
| violate the GPL in any way? My impression is that the beef against
| Magick++ is that it has far more capability in it than is now needed,
| causing a big draw on memory that isn't really necessary.
We won't be distributing the GraphicsMagick++ with Octave, so I would
not worry about this, at least for now. Is the library really very
big? It looks like it is around 2.7MB on my system, though it depends
on a lot of other libraries, some of which will be linked to Octave
anyway. I don't know what the total size is, but does it matter that
much even if it is 20-30MB?
jwe
- Re: imread/imwrite, (continued)
- Re: imread/imwrite, Julian Schnidder, 2008/06/19
- mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), Thomas L. Scofield, 2008/06/19
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), David Bateman, 2008/06/20
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/06/20
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), John W. Eaton, 2008/06/20
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/06/20
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), dbateman, 2008/06/20
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/06/21
- Re: mercurial in OS 10.4.11 (was imread/imwrite), John W. Eaton, 2008/06/23
Re: imread/imwrite, Ben Abbott, 2008/06/20
imread/imwrite,
John W. Eaton <=