JasonMDavey

Thanks Jeremy. I filed this as a documentation bug - not an issue with functionality. I would have expected this signature for image() to have been included in the main...

I see - I didn't know where the reference was supposed to be pitched exactly in terms of level of detail. I can definitely see the argument for omitting methods...

Your example there using img.get() is still creating an intermediate PImage, presumably, even if we don't store it in a variable? It's allocating and copying all of those pixels each...

Thanks Jeremy. I filed this as a documentation bug - not an issue with functionality. I would have expected this signature for image() to have been included in the main...

I see - I didn't know where the reference was supposed to be pitched exactly in terms of level of detail. I can definitely see the argument for omitting methods...

Your example there using img.get() is still creating an intermediate PImage, presumably, even if we don't store it in a variable? It's allocating and copying all of those pixels each...