On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 12:34 +0100, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> If the healing tool were to applied on the fly while the brush is over a
> defective part, its boundary will most probably contain defective
> pixels. Think of long thin scratch, say several hundreds of pixels long,
> and you're using a brush of say 20 pixels in diameter.
I wasn't suggesting to apply it on the fly but to apply it on the region
touched in one stroke of the tool. As far as I know that is also what PS
> So, if the 'brush style' of the healing tool is a must, I'd suggest to
> do away with the healing tool altogether - as a separate tool. Instead
> one could add a post-processing option to the clone tool which tries to
> call for the chameleon described above.
It can still be a separate tool to the user. A lot of our tools are
internally very similar. Think of tools more than a way for a user to
select a certain set of parameters and algorithms. Even if the heal tool
is just the clone tool with an extra option, it can still be an extra
tool. Just like the Pencil tool is the same as the Paintbrush tool
internally, it only has one parameter set differently.
Gimp-developer mailing list