> > > I'd like to hear what other people think: is that factor of 1.5 or > > 2.0 in speed > > enough to motivate switching to vips for the default sage imaging > > library? > > Is PIL really the default? I did not know that. > > I don't mean for my comments to be interpreted for or against PIL. > I simply want to examine VIPS more carefully. I think PIL (for all its > flaws) would be easier to wrap than VIPS. Though ease-of-use is a > Sage goal, I think software quality is another and that is the issue I am > worried about. I'm happy to hear arguments for/against any open source > image processing software.
Thanks for looking into this issue. I guess by 'default' I just meant that its the only imaging library that shows up under 'sage -optional', and in fact it always builds and installs with 'sage -i'. That makes it my default, anyway. And I think most of the python scipy stack users consider PIL the de facto standard, though I don't have any real evidence to back that up. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
