- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg100270] Image, Graphics[Raster]
- From: "Scot T. Martin" <smartin at seas.harvard.edu>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 04:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <6147782.1243412890107.JavaMail.root@n11> <200905280829.EAA14200@smc.vnet.net>
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
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]