Re: IrfanView

2000-05-31 Thread Marc Lehmann
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:45:04PM +0200, "Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And btw, to quick load, have anyone tried "gimp --no-data --no-splash file"? It is not as faster as a viewer, but it is better than other solutions. guash is quite nice. it mimics xv's

Re: IrfanView

2000-05-30 Thread Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero
By default photoshop saves a flattened version of the image as well as all of the layers for backward compatibility purposes. I would assume that IrfanView is just displaying the flattened version of the image straight from the file. We may want to add similar functionality to gimp and the xcf

Re: IrfanView

2000-05-29 Thread Hago Ziegler
IrfanView works for psd (Photoshop) files, too, I think.) I think, that's a misunderstanding. It seemd very strange to me, that such a complex viewer shows only the bottom layer of an image file, so I tried IrfanView with layerd Photoshop-files: it shows the layers flattened on a white background

Re: IrfanView

2000-05-29 Thread Jay Cox
probably be shown. (This is how IrfanView works for psd (Photoshop) files, too, I think.) I think, that's a misunderstanding. It seemd very strange to me, that such a complex viewer shows only the bottom layer of an image file, so I tried IrfanView with layerd Photoshop-files: it shows

Re: IrfanView

2000-05-28 Thread Tor Lillqvist
this? Wouldn't it be good for Gimp, if there would be an external viewer to watch the files? Yes and no. He told me that he wouldn't be making the viewer able to parse xcf files completely, anyway, as that would be too complex. Only the bottom layer would probably be shown. (This is how IrfanView

Re: IrfanView

2000-05-28 Thread Seth Burgess
and want to save it between editing sessions, wouldn't it be counter-productive if IrfanView would show only the bottom layer? No, you store all niftiness such as paths, etc. Though if you can't view the layers, its not as cool/useful. From a work standpoint, it only makes sense though - you'd have