snapshot and background problems

[J. Landman Gay]

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         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com