Scott Rossi wrote:
I have no data to suggest that setting the text of an image is any better or worse than the method of putting image-related data into an image. I've only seen references by the programming dudes at RunRev to use the text property, so I do.
They're different properties for different purposes. The imagedata is basically just a screen shot and if you set the imagedata of an image object, what you end up with is just a bitmap. All other binary info is lost, including channel data. If you set the imagedata of an image object that isn't exactly the same size as the original screen shot, the image will corrupt and become unrecognizable. The imagedata must match the size of the image object exactly to display properly. (Once it's set correctly, you can then scale it, but it will look terrible.)
Setting the text of an image (or just putting an image reference into an image object, it's the same thing) stores all the binary data, including the alpha channel, and the image is scalable and can be manipulated in lots of ways. The size of the image object does not need to match anything in particular, since the engine will scale the data as needed.
Imagedata is useful for creating thumbnails, for example, or for reducing the size footprint of an image in the stack when you know you'll never need to change the displayed bitmap. You can reduce the size of the image internally substantially by using imagedata. Setting the text of an image is more useful if you want to retain all the image properties and manipulate it (rotate, scale, etc.)
-- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [email protected] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
