:> :If that is true, then you definitely don't want to use
:> :gimp_pencil() or similar functions.
:> Umm... that's *exactly* what I wanted to do.
:> But from your reply I guess that (a) it's not possible, or (b) it's a bad 
:Anything is possible and there are often multiple ways to achieve one's
:aim. That's also the case here. But unless you give us some details
:about the plug-in you are writing, I can't tell which way would be best
:in your case. And I am not going to waste my time explaining all of

What I'm writing is straightforward- it's a linear (i.e. one-dimensional) 
unsharp mask. (I'm probably not the first to do this, but it's a good learning 
opportunity, and it confirmed my hunch that it would work better against motion 
blur than the standard version). The line is supposed to illustrate the angle 
and size of the convolution.

I didn't give any specific details, nor post my code, because I assumed that- 
once explained- the problem would be a general one with a straightforward 
answer. At the time, I thought it was easier to use the standard example, which 
was cleaner and simpler than my code but still illustrated the point.

I apologise if it sounds like I'm making a big deal of this, or that it's a 
major hurdle; it's not. For a one-off, it would probably be simple to write a 
crude pixel-based line function myself. But it would be silly to keep doing 
this every time *if* there was already a simple way of using the existing 

Anyway, I'll tidy up my code and post relevant parts here soon. In the 
meantime, thank you for your help.


Get your FREE OiNK-Mail ---> http://www.oink.co.uk

Adopt an animal today and help support wildlife conservation ---> 

The Rainforests. Home to half of all living species. Don't let them disappear.  
---> http://www.adoption.co.uk/rainforest
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to