On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:53:45PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> Although back on the topic of anti-erase, I think that the only way to
> do anti-erase correctly is with another layer. Once alpha goes to zero,
> the pixel no larger part of the sampled image.
OK, I could use alpha in a wrong sense, it's a matter of
definition, and let's agree on yours (though I wonder how's
called the object alpha==0 pixels are part of, because
I can draw on them, unlike pixels outside layer boundaries,
so they exist and are part of something).
But then I, as a user, don't care about alpha, and what
I really care about is transparency. So everything what was
said can be repeated, only s/alpha/transparency/. My need
for pixels retaining their properties even in invisible
state didn't disappear.
Gimp-developer mailing list