(YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"

blazar has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I would like some piece of advice about which graphics module (out of the so many ones available from CPAN) to use for a certain task.

The task is to generate a bitmap image taking into account the following "requirements":

The optimal target could be png, as it would be nice (but not strictly necessary) to have control over the bit depth per pixel, and of course the module should allow access to such fine tunings.
I'm more interested in ease of use in terms of UI and amount of code to write than, say, efficiency or speed.

As for the first point, since this is a job to be done just once or at most a few times, I would consider it acceptable to have output to some other format and do any required conversions with external tools.

As for the second point, I wanted to point this out because often people who ask this kind of questions have to generate images on the fly to serve from a webserver aut similia, which is not my case.

To explain myself with an example (close enough to my real needs), suppose I have a loop that at every iteration gives me an array of integers. Then I want to output a line of graphics with a black pixel, for every such integer, precisely at an offset of that many pixel from the left border (and all others white).

Comment on (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Mar 24, 2005 at 09:41 UTC

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.

[reply]

Re^2: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"

by blazar (Canon) on Mar 24, 2005 at 10:04 UTC

So you want to plot pixels? Graby any module with a setPixel method and bitmap (png, whatever) support and have at it. GD, Imager, Image::Magick...they all use the same libraries underneath to support the various image formats, and practically all of them have a way to plot pixels.

so many

una tantum

UPDATE: I used the latin expression "una tantum" which is used idiomatically in Italian and means "only for once", and which I thought to be similarly used internationally, just like, say, "vice versa" is. But as someone pointed out it seems it is not, so I apologize with all those to whom this may have caused some confusion.

[reply]

Re^3: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"

by zentara (Cardinal) on Mar 24, 2005 at 12:45 UTC

I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. flash japh

[reply]

Re^4: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"

by blazar (Canon) on Mar 24, 2005 at 12:51 UTC

Re^3: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"

by leocharre (Priest) on Jan 09, 2007 at 17:28 UTC

ImageMagick has superb documentation. It just looks funny because a lot of it seems to be programmer interface independent- Command line and all.. But I personally think the module is great. I tried Imager and I had some problems getting png support. These suites can be a pain in the 755 to install.

[reply]

Re: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"
by Taulmarill (Deacon) on Mar 24, 2005 at 09:36 UTC

[reply]

Re: (YA) Q: re "which graphics module?"
by kimanaw (Beadle) on Mar 24, 2005 at 23:15 UTC

Caveat: GD has proven to be a PITA to build/install in some environments, tho PPMs for common platforms are usually readily available. And font support has also been a sticky issue, tho the latest releases seem to provide some better solutions than just FreeType (I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but hope to RSN).

[reply]