peter sikking (pe...@mmiworks.net) wrote: > > Hmm, you might have misunderstood what I meant by shapebursts. The > > shapebursts are special gradients that mimic the shape of your > > selection (currently labeled "Shaped (angular)", "Shaped (spherical)", > > and "Shaped (dimpled)"). Anyway, at this point I'm really conflicted > > as to what should be done with them. I'm not sure whether they belong > > in the blend tool or not right now. > > OK, I should have consulted the manual and now I have done it. > > I am now completely convinced that the shape burst belongs > in the gradient tool. there is nothing contradictory about > that. the gradient tool applies a gradient fill (as everything: > modified by the selection) and Shape is a fill ‘mode’. > > and when talking interactive: next move would be to control > these funky fill shapes on the canvas with a handle or two.
A little background on shapeburst modes to get an idea about what might be adjustable by the user. When filling with a shapeburst mode, a distance map is computed, where for each somewhat-selected pixel a distance to the nearest unselected pixel is computed. The "distance" is computed using a manhattan metrics (dx+dy), with some funky shit for partially selected pixels. For the latter part I am currently not convinced that it works correctly and consistent. Computing the distance map is an expensive operation (and unfortunately the manhattan-metrics approach introduces some quite visible weird unexpected artefacts). But this actually needs to be done only when the selection changes, I think right now it is computed every time. A huge improvement would be to change the distance metrics to something euclidean. That'd give way more predictable and useful results. However, this is not easy at all apparently... The currently selected gradient is then mapped to the distance (think gradient-map). The "angular", "spherical" and "dimpled" variants are basically specifying what function is used to map the distance to a position in the gradient. This *could* be something more funky, similiar to how I used the curves tool to determine the shape of the golden text in my ancient golden-text-tutorial: http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/gimp/golden2.html "angular" would be a linear mapping and I believe that "spherical" and "dimpled" basically would be quarter-circle mappings (in different directions). Changing this to a generic (editable?) curve should be fairly straightforward. Bye, Simon -- si...@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
