> From: Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We currently use alpha to do proper antialiasing, compositing
> existing photos on top of each other and in all of these cases a
> coupled "alphacolor" (= color + alpha value) would be cumbersome
> and unhelpful.
Why unhelpful? Note, that you are already used to something, and
different does not mean unhelpful. I would love to change colors
(including transparency) so I could focus only on several tools. For
me using alpha channel just to make something transparent is tiresome
because I have to use more tools than I really need.
> But even taking him into account the current model
> has served us well for the last years and there has been very few
> discussion about this specific problem, if it cropped up it was in
> the context of indexed PNGs with "alphacolors" or generating
> textures for renderers. For the general public the current model
> seems to generally work and I don't see a compelling reason to
> change this.
Well, one thing is history -- everything (in general) worked in the
past -- why introduce cars when horses... etc etc etc :-)
The second thing is potential benefit -- and I believe less time spent
on creating an image _is_ benefit. Note, that it will not introduce
new features per se, it only could only change the way you work (if
one wishes so). You can work with colors with color tools and you can
only work with alpha channel with alpha channel tools. It is
narrowing possibilities -- why not pick up brush, shape, pressure and
polish a picture edges with transparency (as color)?
> From: David Odin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the real world I live in, I have yet to see a transparent
Wish granted -- simply use your finger (I assume you thought of glass
painting because it is only good metaphor source for working with
alpha channel in the first place).
Gimp-developer mailing list