On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:54 PM, J Elaych<microsc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > 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.
Well, PIL is no doubt the standard. But I don't see why this would be a problem to use VIPS as well. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
