java 图像与缓冲图像
声明：本页面是StackOverFlow热门问题的中英对照翻译，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要使用它，必须同样遵循CC BY-SA许可，注明原文地址和作者信息，同时你必须将它归于原作者（不是我）：StackOverFlow
原文地址: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11810370/
Warning: these are provided under cc-by-sa 4.0 license. You are free to use/share it, But you must attribute it to the original authors (not me):
StackOverFlow
Image vs. BufferedImage
提问by Jamie
Whenever dealing with the loading and rendering of images in Java, I have previously always used BufferedImages to store and manipulate the images in memory.
每当在 Java 中处理图像的加载和渲染时，我以前总是使用BufferedImages 在内存中存储和操作图像。
However, I have recently come across a fewdifferentsitesthat use the Imageclass instead of BufferedImageand this got me wondering - what are the differences?
但是，我最近遇到了一些使用该类而不是该类的不同站点，这让我想知道 - 有什么区别？ImageBufferedImage
I'm aware that a BufferedImagehas a larger/optimised toolset, but does come at any cost? If so, when does this cost become noticeable? In which situations would you use an Imageover a BufferedImage, or vice-versa?
我知道 aBufferedImage有一个更大/优化的工具集，但不惜一切代价吗？如果是这样，这个成本什么时候变得明显？在什么情况下您会使用Imageover a BufferedImage，反之亦然？
回答by Petar Minchev
BufferedImage extends Image. Imageis just a base abstract class and you can't instantiate it. Under the hood you are using BufferedImageor another implementation for sure.
BufferedImage extends Image. Image只是一个基本的抽象类，你不能实例化它。在您正在使用的引擎盖下BufferedImage或肯定的其他实现。
回答by edwga
There shouldn't be any real performance difference between directly creating a BufferedImage and a Toolkit image (java.awt.Toolkit or Image#getScaledInstance). You'll never have an actual instance of Image because it's an abstract class; you'll only be dealing with its subclasses (e.g. BufferedImage).
直接创建 BufferedImage 和 Toolkit 图像（java.awt.Toolkit 或 Image#getScaledInstance）之间不应该有任何真正的性能差异。你永远不会有 Image 的实际实例，因为它是一个抽象类；您将只处理它的子类（例如 BufferedImage）。
