On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, ?yvind Kol?s wrote:
> I was not describing user interface anywhere in my mail,
To be honest, I think I missed your message.
If I have mischaracterized what you have said (and judging from
what you say below, it looks like someone has), I crave pardon.
Here's what I was disagreeing with:
> > > Yet AFAIKS none of the examples has shown a requirement for
> > > doing actual image processing in CMYK space (which is a
> > > good thing, btw).
To justify this, the message continues:
> > > By this i mean anything which can't be done by processing
> > > the "plates" as separate grayscale channels (see ?yvind
> > > Kolas's post).
It sounds to me like the latter sentence is referring to the UI,
considering the content of the former sentence.
> I was describing
> underlying implementation mechanisms. GEGL stores pixels in buffers
> that can store and on demand convert to and from RGB, YCbCr, CIE Lab
> and Grayscale (dynamically extendable with other color models).
> Allowing image processing operations to be implemented using the
> models best fit for a particular operation.
I certainly don't take issue with that.
> At the moment I do not have interest in CMYK but the above outline is
> in line with my ideas on how GEGL should evolve.
At first blush, what you said seems about right. I'll read it
more closely and give it more thought.
| Andrew A. Gill To ensure continued quality of service, |
| this e-mail is being monitored by the NSA |
| <superlu...@frontiernet.net> <http://www.needsfoodbadly.com> |
Gimp-developer mailing list