On 8/26/06, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 20:01 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> Is there some simple way to achieve hard-edged rendering for the Ink
> tool?

Should be a simple change, just turn off supersampling in the ink code.

Ah, the #define SUBSAMPLE 8 line. Changing it to 1 does indeed do what I wanted.

> I find the hard edged rendering used in INDEXED mode best for drawing
> lineart, but dislike the other constraints (no drawing
> modes/opacity/layer modes) imposed by working in INDEXED mode.

Eeek, the way it acts in INDEXED mode is so ugly. Why would you want to
do this?

Because it's easier to edit. If edges aren't defined in a binary way, it makes selecting portions of lineart and moving or removing them hard -- I have to set the threshold of whatever tool I'm using to a high value, but that high value will be not what I want for most of what I'm doing. I'm trying to avoid tedious fiddling.

Is there some specific part of the INDEXED behaviour that you are eeking about? I'm just looking for the hard edges.

> So far, I've tried to find the part of the code that handles indexed
> images without success.

Why would you look for it? That's completely unrelated here. The ugly
behaviour in indexed mode is just a shortcoming of the code that
combines regions.

It's good to know that. I previously got the impression that you were indifferent to GIMP's usefulness for editing INDEXED images. I certainly hope that I can substantially improve indexed drawing specifically, when GEGL is in use and I understand it. I think it would be relatively simple to bring INDEXED drawing to the level of usefulness demonstrated by professional pixeling tools (ProMotion, or the older DeluxePaint and it's clones) with a sound architecture like that.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to