I don't know if I understood the question exactly like you think, but if you ask if let's say we have header
void myFunc(cv::Mat &m);
// .... later on
cv::Mat image = imread("image.jpg", 0);
cv::Mat imageROI = image(0, 0, 100, 100);
myFunction(imageROI);
// .... later on myFuncDefinition
void myFunc(cv::Mat &m) {
// some code
// here you would like to have an original image, right?
}
So the answer for that is no and the proof is by simplicity: why want you to design opencv api in such way to make it possible store unnecessary data? If you do
cv::Mat imageROI = image(0, 0, 100, 100);
by purpose you would like to forgot about entire image and you are particulary interested in some ROI. Mat container is designed in such way to copy only matrix 'headers' and not matrix content. So if you do cv::Mat imageROI = image(0, 0, 100, 100) perhaps the matrix content (ie image data) might be stored somewhere in memory (because roi is the part of it, so by optimalization purposes it might no be deleted even is original image variable went out of scope), but your matrix header changed. Namely, from pointing to (0, 0, imageWisth, imageHeight) to (0, 0, 100, 100) and there's no way to bring it back just using variable m.
Why don't pass additional parameter as a reference?