"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:efub9t$sio$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase@gmail.com> wrote in message news:30f04db60610022214t6b2b42b8h8c4efe9f14bac849@mail.gmail.com... With the last finishing touches completed, i'm excited to be able to announce that the review of Generic Image Library (GIL) will begin October 5, in three days.
My first impression is that the library mixes many Concepts, that can easily be separated. The first is of a display matrix, the second is of an image. Others .. Points are Geometric Concepts. Colour is a Concept which too could stand alone. Cursor (locator) is useful to a matrix
The concept of an display matrix could be applied elsewhere, where elements could be for example text characters. An image can also be comprised of vector graphics, but this subject is not touched upon in any serious way.
Colour would be useful in Vector graphics, but would deserve its own library and I would expect to see the interface more user friendly with mappings to commonly used colour systems such as those in HTML, SVG and VRML.
The domain that the library can be used in is very narrow. To be seriously used for image recognition as was previously suggested an application, my guess is that the library would need the ability to apply arbitrary transforms, including other than 90 degree rotations, and interpolation of points, stereoscopic vision etc.
As it stands the only use I can see is for touching up photos, and that is my problem with it , the domain is too limited. I would suggest revisiting the Concepts ,extracting them and then making sure that each would stand on its own. That would be a more interesting and widely useable set of libraries.
regards Andy Little
I just wanted to second Andy's opinion, because these are my thoughts on the library, exactly. It's too large of a beast that should be broken down into several smaller stand alone libraries that could be repurposed to various tasks. Michael Goldshteyn