Why can't it be as simple as this?
BufferedImage image = new BufferedImage(TYPE_BYTE, FORMAT_RGB, width, height, data);
Surely for a tool to be useful simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. *sigh*
Friday, December 22, 2006
What is wrong with computer scientists?
Today I spent pretty much all my time trying to get fricking Java to convert a 1D buffer of 8 bit colors (i.e. RGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGB...) into a viewable image. But no, Java has to abstract everything to death into Raster, DataBuffer, BufferedImage, ColorSpace, ColorModel, ComponentColorModel ... ad nauseum. There's been more or less no progress since I started. I still have a buffer in a perfectly valid format and it still isn't rendered.
Why can't it be as simple as this?
Surely for a tool to be useful simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. *sigh*
Why can't it be as simple as this?
Surely for a tool to be useful simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. *sigh*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You must be new here.
;-)
Last time I used Java it didn't seem that hard. Perhaps I'm too used to the Python library (though that could do with a rework to be really nice).
Don't even get me started on how hard the Independant JPEG group API was to link up to...
I fully agree, the Java Image classes are way too complex to use.
What I usually do is to create a BufferedImage, IIRC it has a setRGB() method that can be used to set a single pixel or a number of pixels.
Hi Anonymous!
Yeah I'd do that if it was a single image... unfortunately in this case it was a MJPEG (motion JPEG) stream on relatively slow iMac so we needed a fast decoder. Much easier in Python :)
Post a Comment