Re: New plug-in
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Mickael Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, i'm new in this mailing list, and speaking with a friend of mine last > week end, i'm think about making a plug-in for gimp dealing with splitting an > image into several images, for web site (for example) like this: Why not use one of the already existing ones? (see http://www.registry.org, for example QuickPage) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: New plug-in
Sven Neumann wrote: > > The Guillotine plug-in does image-splitting already and perl-o-tine enhances > this functionality by writing the html-table to put the images back together. > Is that what you are looking for? Lots to learn. I'll need to try Guillotine and perl-o-tine. In the past I have used ImageReady and its "slice along guides" feature. It prompts you "slice along guides?" when saving. If you choose it saves out all the images and an HTML page with the table. -- Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/jon/ "Everybody Loves The GIMP!" http://www.gimp.org/
Re: New plug-in
Hi, > Hello, i'm new in this mailing list, and speaking with a friend of mine last > week end, i'm think about making a plug-in for gimp dealing with splitting an > image into several images, for web site (for example) like this: > > source image: > > > | 1 | 2 | 3 | > > | 4 | 5 | > > > out images: > > - --- -- --- -- > | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | | 5 | > - --- -- --- -- The Guillotine plug-in does image-splitting already and perl-o-tine enhances this functionality by writing the html-table to put the images back together. Is that what you are looking for? Salut, Sven
Re: New plug-in
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Jay Cox wrote: > Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > Actually the first thing this plugin does is copy the pixel data into it's own > process so there is no extra data thrashing going on (though it may be able to > benefit from a call to gimp_tile_cache_ntiles). Copying all the pixel info > locally isn't exactly something that we should encourage plugins to do, but given > the multipass nature of this plugin it seems a reasonable thing to do. > > The slow part of the plugin is finding the best matches between the input image > and the corpus image. I might suggest using a BSP tree or a multidimensional > hash to speed that part of the process up, though I'm not sure if either of those > would really be faster than the current qicksort like algorithm. One other > possible optimization would be to disregard duplicated patches from the corpus > image. > Yep, the corpus search is what is slowing it down, my current algorithm is pretty ugly -- a combination of a binary search tree and k-means. Hopefully i can improve it for the next version. btw, thanks to all the people who replied to my question about patents. regards, Paul Harrison Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~pfh/ grey spiderwebs define space
Re: New plug-in
Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:40:02 +1100 (EST), Paul F Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >I have made a plug-in that does some interesting things, like applying > >a theme taken from one image and applying it to another, or making an > >image tilable. More details at > > >http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~pfh/fixer/ > > >This is my first plug-in (and my first post to this list). Any comments > >would be appreciated, especially about any GIMP conventions i may have > >inadvertantly missed. > > It's incredibly slow, probably because you did a naive iteration > across the image instead of using pixel regions. Doing direct > iterations across a gimp image thrashes the system badly and is an > evil thing to do. Please rewrite your code to use pixel regions and > rerelease. (I'd do it myself but I'm on other tasks ATM.) > Actually the first thing this plugin does is copy the pixel data into it's own process so there is no extra data thrashing going on (though it may be able to benefit from a call to gimp_tile_cache_ntiles). Copying all the pixel info locally isn't exactly something that we should encourage plugins to do, but given the multipass nature of this plugin it seems a reasonable thing to do. The slow part of the plugin is finding the best matches between the input image and the corpus image. I might suggest using a BSP tree or a multidimensional hash to speed that part of the process up, though I'm not sure if either of those would really be faster than the current qicksort like algorithm. One other possible optimization would be to disregard duplicated patches from the corpus image. Jay Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: This plugin is very cool, congratulations to the author!
Re: New plug-in
Hi there, > >>A question about patents. Is putting something on the web enough to > >>prevent someone patenting it, or could someone download my plug-in and > >>then patent the algorithm? (I don't have the original mail anymore...) > The best thing I can think of is to have a copy of the source code > notarized and stored in a safe-deposit box. You could mail it to > yourself, but a notarization is probably stronger legally (because the > notary can testify). > > A copyright registration might not be sufficient since you're not > required to deposit the full source code for a TX Unpub registration. > It would provide evidence of prior art, at least; whether it would be > sufficient, I can't say. Ask a patent lawyer. I would go for the "Eternal logfile", run by Lutz Donnerhacke. See http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/logfile/ for more information. (In short, it's a logfile which is secured by several hash functions and these hashes are made public once in a while so everything you write to it cannot be altered later without noticing. So you just submit an MD5 sum of your source to the logfile with a comment stating what it is and whom it belongs to.) HTH! Tino. -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? *
Re: New plug-in
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:40:02 +1100 (EST), Paul F Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >I have made a plug-in that does some interesting things, like applying >a theme taken from one image and applying it to another, or making an >image tilable. More details at >http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~pfh/fixer/ >This is my first plug-in (and my first post to this list). Any comments >would be appreciated, especially about any GIMP conventions i may have >inadvertantly missed. It's incredibly slow, probably because you did a naive iteration across the image instead of using pixel regions. Doing direct iterations across a gimp image thrashes the system badly and is an evil thing to do. Please rewrite your code to use pixel regions and rerelease. (I'd do it myself but I'm on other tasks ATM.) Kelly
Re: New plug-in
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:03:59 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero) said: >>A question about patents. Is putting something on the web enough to >>prevent someone patenting it, or could someone download my plug-in and >>then patent the algorithm? >Your plugin is prior art so patents can not be taken. But web is still a >weird place, so you will have to convice lawyers that it is your and since >day X. >What I would do is to register your plugin (copyright office) or get an >official stamp (notary? I hope that is the correct word for the guy who does >that). In other words, an official doc that says that since day X your app >exists, and is yours. The best thing I can think of is to have a copy of the source code notarized and stored in a safe-deposit box. You could mail it to yourself, but a notarization is probably stronger legally (because the notary can testify). A copyright registration might not be sufficient since you're not required to deposit the full source code for a TX Unpub registration. It would provide evidence of prior art, at least; whether it would be sufficient, I can't say. Ask a patent lawyer. Kelly
Re: New plug-in
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:16:54 -0500 (EST), Glyph Lefkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >IANAL either, but the "quick and dirty" solution to this is just to print >out the code to your plugin, stick it in an envelope, and mail it to >yourself. This is archaic advice, and virtually useless. All doing that does is provide proof of date of authorship. It ceased to be legally meritorious in 1978 when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect. Kelly
Re: New plug-in
IANAL either, but the "quick and dirty" solution to this is just to print out the code to your plugin, stick it in an envelope, and mail it to yourself. USPS is recognized by the US courts as valid, so a postmarked, sealed envelope is pretty much incontrivertable proof that you were there when you said you were. (YMMV: obviously, these instructions are obviously only valid for the USA, and I know you're not from there... good luck finding out if a similiar thing is possible in .au) The Tao is like a glob pattern: It is masked but always present. used but never used up. I don't know who built to it. It is like the extern void: It came before the first kernel. filled with infinite possibilities. [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: > >A question about patents. Is putting something on the web enough to > >prevent someone patenting it, or could someone download my plug-in and > >then patent the algorithm? > > Your plugin is prior art so patents can not be taken. But web is still a > weird place, so you will have to convice lawyers that it is your and since > day X. > > What I would do is to register your plugin (copyright office) or get an > official stamp (notary? I hope that is the correct word for the guy who does > that). In other words, an official doc that says that since day X your app > exists, and is yours. > > So if anybody tries to patent it he will be unable to get it (prior art) or > will get a void patent (due lack of prior art research). I think that the > copyright registration is not expensive, and as legal evidence it should be > enough. And it will also in the case of somebody not following your license. > > Anyway, check with a lawyer, IANAL. > > GSR
Re: New plug-in
>A question about patents. Is putting something on the web enough to >prevent someone patenting it, or could someone download my plug-in and >then patent the algorithm? Your plugin is prior art so patents can not be taken. But web is still a weird place, so you will have to convice lawyers that it is your and since day X. What I would do is to register your plugin (copyright office) or get an official stamp (notary? I hope that is the correct word for the guy who does that). In other words, an official doc that says that since day X your app exists, and is yours. So if anybody tries to patent it he will be unable to get it (prior art) or will get a void patent (due lack of prior art research). I think that the copyright registration is not expensive, and as legal evidence it should be enough. And it will also in the case of somebody not following your license. Anyway, check with a lawyer, IANAL. GSR
