| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
The Grumpy Editor's Guide to Image ViewersThe Grumpy Editor's Guide to Image ViewersPosted Mar 24, 2004 1:24 UTC (Wed) by branden (subscriber, #7029)In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's Guide to Image Viewers by dbharris Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's Guide to Image Viewers
Nobody has mentioned imagemagick?! Good god! Well, yes, actually, the article's author did. Finally, your editor will respond grumpily to mail suggesting packages like netpbm or ImageMagick. Those tools are invaluable for scripted applications, and no doubt some clever netpbm hacker could devise a six-stage pipeline involving two separate invocations of the ppmfrobnicate filter to perform all of the tasks above. That is not interesting, however; image viewing and editing is are jobs best done in a graphical mode. I guess you can await a grumpy reply.
(Log in to post comments)
The Grumpy Editor's Guide to Image Viewers Posted Mar 24, 2004 2:18 UTC (Wed) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link] Was our grumpy author aware of the "display" program?I certainly was not and at first glance it seems to fit the bill. I went to /usr/share/wallpapers and typed "display *png &" and after about a minute I am happily cropping, resizing, and tweaking colours. I can also merrily spacebar my way through the directory. Just left-click on the image and I think you will find much more than a scripting interface. Obviously I have not spent a lot of time on it but the quality looks ok to me. I was almost ready to go off and program "lwnedit" but now I think it would be a waste of time.
The Grumpy Editor's Guide to Image Viewers Posted Mar 24, 2004 5:17 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] I believe that the "display" you are talking about isactually the graphical user interface to the ImageMagick package of utilities, such as it is. One can certainly criticize some usability features of display, but I also wondered why it wasn't mentioned in the context of ImageMagick's dismissal in the article.
|
|||||||||||