Page 1 of 1

PhotoShop "Stroke Path" Funtionality Exist in ImageMagick?

Posted: 2008-02-10T10:21:41-07:00
by shulet
Hi! New to forum...

I've looked over some of the documentation, the Usage page, and read about the "Draw" capability, but I am still unclear as to whether this capability exists. Here is what I want to do:

1) Make a raster selection based on color (or multiple colors).
2) Create a path/vector/line (whatever ImageMagick might call it) around the selection.
3) Perform a "Stroke Path" with a given "Brush" (shape/pattern/size) at user-specified intervals along the path.

Can this be scripted in ImageMagick?

Thanks!

Re: PhotoShop "Stroke Path" Funtionality Exist in ImageMagick?

Posted: 2008-02-10T19:30:37-07:00
by anthony
I can thing of a method where a shape can be outlined with a stroke of particular thickness.
(using image processing operations to get a edge, and blur threshold it to a specific size)
However that is not what you are describing.

What you are really after is a method of geting the vector outline of a shaped area. And vector generation is not what IM is all about.

I suggest you look at AutoTrace
http://autotrace.sourceforge.net/
which is an opensource program to generate vector images from shapes.

Re: PhotoShop "Stroke Path" Funtionality Exist in ImageMagick?

Posted: 2008-02-10T19:59:21-07:00
by shulet
Anthony,

Thanks for reply!

Note that I am not interested in converting to, or saving a vector format. I only want to create a path along a raster selection in order to perform additional raster operations along that path (to modify original image). The paths/vectors can be discarded at this point. Does ImageMagick provide the functionality to perform raster manipulation along a path?

Thanks!

Scott

Re: PhotoShop "Stroke Path" Funtionality Exist in ImageMagick?

Posted: 2008-02-19T22:53:09-07:00
by anthony
It can draw or stroke the path. It can not draw text along a path.

By drawing the path and using the image as a mask, you can cut out a region specifyied by a path.

Other that that... NO not really.