Re: imread image sizing

[Daniel J Sebald]

John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 10-Mar-2004, Daniel J Sebald <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> | OK.  I could possibly do that, but it would be post 4.0 of gnuplot.
>
> Why would it require gnuplot 4.0?
>
> It seems to me that most image processing functions are not about
> display, and for display, we should choose the display method rather
> than forcing gnuplot to be the only method.

Well, it sounds to me like the discussion list had some agreement that 
Octave should be built to have alternative and selectable (whether it be 
at compile time or whatever) display methods.  That's fine.  That should 
be incorporated.  That actually may be something bigger than just the 
image routines.  But of course I would take that into consideration.

From my perspective, I'm interested in Gnuplot images, for the simple 
fact that it can generate x11, PostScript, EPS, combination 
PostScript/LaTeX.  There is a good chance post-4.0 Gnuplot will have 
image support early on.  That would be my starting point for organizing 
the image.m file.  In fact, I've written my own version of image.m that 
will check the current version of Gnuplot and if the version is less 
than a certain number, Octave will default to its current image viewer.

So, my initial motivation would be a nice complete display environment 
based upon Gnuplot, and then later other graphics packages could be 
swapped in.  That probably means that there needs to be an Octave 
graphics variable set at compile time so that image.m can know what 
graphics system it is supposed to use.  Otherwise, image.m would need to 
be turned into an internal routine.

Dan