in reply to Image::Magick Annotate() doesn't look good

Got a screenshot? The reason I ask is because I get results (1, 2) which look great. Maybe your font is corrupt? Try upgrading your copy of Image::Magick.

update: It's just your code run through perltidy with the "Tahoma Bold" font.

#!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Image::Magick; my $label = Image::Magick->new( size => "600x600", ); $label->Read("xc:white"); $label->Draw( primitive => 'line', points => "300,100 300,500", stroke => '#600', ); $label->Draw( primitive => 'line', points => "100,300 500,300", stroke => '#600', ); $label->Draw( primitive => 'rectangle', points => "100,100 500,500", fill => 'none', stroke => '#600', ); my $x = $label->Annotate( text => "North West", 'x' => 150, 'y' => 150, pointsize => 40, font => $ENV{WINDIR}.'\Fonts\Tahomabd.ttf', ); die "$x" if "$x"; $label->Write("annot2.png");

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re2: Image::Magick Annotate() doesn't look good
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 21, 2003 at 03:23 UTC
    PodMaster - can you give me the code you used for the second sample? That looks to be exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks!

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6

    ... strings and arrays will suffice. As they are easily available as native data types in any sane language, ... - blokhead, speaking on evolutionary algorithms

    Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.