[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2006-04-21 at 2311.22 -0400):
> On 4/19/06, GSR - FR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2006-04-19 at 1158.08 +0200):
> > > > How is this fairly straightforward with the current architecture? I
> > > > would rather say that it is currently almost impossible to implement
> > > > sanely.
> > > Ah, but I'm insane.
> > > Add a layer type for effect layers, and define 3 operations that you can
> > > associate with the layer (to start): curves, levels and colour balance.
> > > All the operations are pixel-by-pixel, which should make things easier.
> > > Then hack the projection code to add a special case for an effect layer.
> > Internally I would say they are blend modes. Make them special so
> > content is fixed and flat (better compression), so only layer mask
> > matters. Then make the formula for the blend mode be curves, levels,
> > colour balance... whatever you can find that is pix to pix (and
> > probably LUT based in many cases, if not all) and make it work in BG
> > while the FG is unused. The settings would be stored in a parasite.
> Excellent idea. Unfortunately, when people say they want layer
> effects most of the time what they mean is that they want spiffy
> auto-drop shadows. Of course, that's not that hard to represent with
> a few parameters. But it's not exactly something you can implement
> with a LUT. Still, I think it's pretty doable as a custom layer.
> Perhaps implementing some as blend types and some as custom layers is
> a good plan.
What I described above is what matches David text ("curves, levels and
colour balance"). He could had used the name Adjustment Layer (the PS
term) or a different description. What you describe is named Layer
Styles (in PS). People want Adjustment Layers anyway too. The main
difference I can see is that one has a layer mask as a requisite (and
the operations performed are in what that layer mask lets pass) and
the other has pixel data (and the operations are performed in those
Adjusment layers (AL, mixed with other topics):
Layers Styles (LS):
And from the bugs and talks in the past, what some people would like
is a "no limits" version, in which you can apply any filter. That has
a problem compared to PS ways, the order. PS declares one special kind
of layer (AL) that works in same order than others, and a reduced set
of operations (LS) applied in the order that makes sense (embossing
the result of the drop shadow? weird) to a given layer.
For a "no limits" the interface has to be reviewed, one option being
some kind of order index, other being a graph approach, in which the
user defines all the orders and relations (this would allow filters
that work with multiple input or output drawables, for example).
That is why I see AL to be the simpler to do, then LS (it would
require a system to keep the user data and swap with the result data,
depending if editing or compositing) and finally the full "you do
whatever you want" system.
Gimp-developer mailing list