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

Reply via email to