Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Ruby (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f66-ruby.html)
-   -   what's the most common library for Ruby image processing? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t840721-whats-the-most-common-library-for-ruby-image-processing.html)

Yingqi Tang 05-15-2007 06:08 PM

what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
All,

what's the most common library for Ruby image processing? What I want to
do is just compare two images based on pixels.

Thanks

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.


Bira 05-15-2007 07:02 PM

Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
On 5/15/07, Yingqi Tang <anakintang@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> what's the most common library for Ruby image processing? What I want to
> do is just compare two images based on pixels.
>
> Thanks


The most common seems to be RMagick, which is itself a binding for the
ImageMagick library.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com


Giles Bowkett 05-15-2007 07:38 PM

Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
> > what's the most common library for Ruby image processing? What I want to
> > do is just compare two images based on pixels.

>
> The most common seems to be RMagick, which is itself a binding for the
> ImageMagick library.


There's also ImageScience, which is obviously set up as an
alternative. Both have their proponents, I think.

--
Giles Bowkett

I'm running a time management experiment: I'm only checking e-mail
twice per day, at 11am and 5pm. If you need to get in touch quicker
than that, call me on my cell.

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org


Giles Bowkett 05-16-2007 11:46 PM

Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
> > There's also ImageScience, which is obviously set up as an
> > alternative. Both have their proponents, I think.

>
> Had a look at the homepage, but it seems it's just a smallish
> thumbnail generator - which is fine, if that's the only thing you need
> it for. RMagick on the other hand is bigger, but it also does a lot
> more.


Hmm, that's weird. It looks like you're right, but why do they make
such a big deal about being better than ImageMagick when IM gets you
such full-featured stuff and ImageScience is so much smaller and
focused? I think ThumbnailScience might have made more sense. Why not
just call it CleanThumb or something? Is it some ego thing?

--
Giles Bowkett

I'm running a time management experiment: I'm only checking e-mail
twice per day, at 11am and 5pm. If you need to get in touch quicker
than that, call me on my cell.

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org


Clifford Heath 05-17-2007 09:56 PM

Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
Giles Bowkett wrote:
> Hmm, that's weird. It looks like you're right, but why do they make
> such a big deal about being better than ImageMagick when IM gets you
> such full-featured stuff and ImageScience is so much smaller and
> focused? I think ThumbnailScience might have made more sense. Why not
> just call it CleanThumb or something? Is it some ego thing?


Without having ever played with IS, it could be because RMagick
leaks memory so badly as to make it unusable for a wide variety
of applications. That's my experience anyhow. I believe that
ImageMagick doesn't have the same problem, but I haven't tested
that.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better, though RMagick's feature
set is wonderful.

Clifford Heath.

Tim Hunter 05-17-2007 10:29 PM

Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
Clifford Heath wrote:
> Without having ever played with IS, it could be because RMagick
> leaks memory so badly as to make it unusable for a wide variety
> of applications. That's my experience anyhow. I believe that
> ImageMagick doesn't have the same problem, but I haven't tested
> that.

As of this moment there are no open bug tracks for RMagick memory leaks
on RubyForge. All the RMagick "leaks" I know about are addressed in this
entry in the RMagick Hints & Tips forum:
http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php...&forum_id=1618.

If you know of a leak that isn't addressed by that tip, I'd love an
opportunity to fix it. Would you mind sending me a script that
reproduces the leak? I need a script with no extra gems or libraries,
just Ruby and RMagick. No Rails, attachment_fu, file_column, gruff,
scruffy, or whatever. Let me know what O/S you're on, what version of
RMagick and ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick, and what version of Ruby. You
can send it directly to me, post it here, or open a bug track on RubyForge.

Thanks very much!

--
RMagick [http://rmagick.rubyforge.org]
RMagick Installation FAQ [http://rmagick.rubyforge.org/install-faq.html]



Clifford Heath 05-18-2007 07:10 AM

Re: what's the most common library for Ruby image processing?
 
Tim Hunter wrote:
> As of this moment there are no open bug tracks for RMagick memory leaks
> If you know of a leak that isn't addressed by that tip, I'd love an
> opportunity to fix it. Would you mind sending me a script


Thanks for your support, and when I get back to Australia,
I'll retest my script with the latest RMagick before sending
it if necessary. I'm sorry if I slurred an old version when
the current version mightn't deserve it. I had heard of issues
from a number of others as well, but I can only relate my
experience (which is admittedly out of date).

It'll be a month or so, unfortunately - I'm travelling and
can't test it here on Mac OSX - the problem was on Debian and
I think WindowsXP.

Clifford Heath.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.