Hi RaphaŽl, I think everyone has more or less had their say on the thread - can I just sum up the salient points?
RaphaŽl Quinet wrote: > I agree. This is what the GIMP does and I was definitely not > suggesting to change this, so I think that you misunderstood what I > wrote. The GIMP will keep on using post-multiplied alpha in the > future, and this is a good thing. > > The whole point of this discussion was based on the fact that because > we use post-multiplied alpha, there is some ambiguity about whether > the average user is supposed to know and rely on the RGB values of > transparent pixels. If we had been using pre-multiplied alpha, then > there would be no reason for any debate, because all transparent > pixels would have R, G and B = 0. You believe that allowing the RGB data behind transparent pixels to be exposed might be confusing to some users - so far in the thread you are the only one who has asserted this. You consider that in certain circumstances this behaviour could be considered a bug. Others have stated that there are several applications where transparent data is stored across sessions, and that this data is indeed useful, and not at all undefined. Personally I have stated that we should never destroy or modify data without explicit user action to that effect. For the moment, unless I am mistaken, you are the only person to have stated that they consider the current behaviour wrt transparency flawed. Can I propose, then, that we keep the current behaviour? Perhaps we could have a filter that pre-multiplies layers by their alpha channel? That would be trivial to write, and would address RaphalŽl's concerns, while staying true to the principle I outlined. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer