On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:39 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira
> David Gowers wrote:
> What do you mean here? I think we need at least these paint tools:
>> Paint (this would be able to do all of what Pencil, Paintbrush, and
>> Airbrush do currently, and perhaps also Eraser), Ink (this does not use
>> 'brushes'), Clone (also Heal?) , Perspective Clone , Blur/Sharpen,
>> Dodge/Burn, Smudge. Do you really have a proposition to unify all of those,
>> or do I misunderstand you?
> Yes, my proposition is to unify all of those.
> The idea is that 'brushes' would become something different than what it is
> now, more related to the "physical" proprieties of the tool used (= brush
> preset) than their meaning in the computer graphics world.
> Brushes in the 'brush' setting window would be of different, selectable
> types, like for example:
> - Brushless -> Behavior as with the current ink tool
> - Parametric -> Vector brushes with adjustable settings affecting their
> shape, possibly of many different types (and not only "circular")
> - From clipboard -> Bitmap brush
> - From file -> Load a brush in bitmap/SVG format (future versions)
> - From path -> Vector brush from a user defined path (future versions)
> Paint, eraser, smudge, clone, blur/sharpen, dodge/burn, clone, would be
> simply different "brush" modes selectable in the brush editing window,
> possibly in addition to others. Some would be mutually exclusive (since
> their effect would cancel one each other, some would stack.
I considered that modes might be how you meant to implement it. That is
definitely a large change in the way the user would use paint tools, we
should get Peter Sikking's input here for sure.
With my idea this way a "brush" can have different shapes, different
> physical behaviors, and different modes of operation.
> Of course, there would be plenty of built-in presets (since the amount of
> different options would be overwhelming for the average user) selectable
> from the brush preset Window. A few basic settings (size, opacity,
> spacing/rate and dynamics will remain easily selectable within the standard
> tool settings window.
And we must make it visually clear that these are really properties of the
brush, to avoid user confusion
(A disclosure triangle would deal with this neatly)
Another thing is that we have actions named like
tools-value--(increase|decrease), etc which currently control some
brush parameters (value-1 is opacity, usually). With your proposition, we
should consider whether we need more actions so that the user can do more
quick changes by keyboard (for example, I'd like to be able to toggle 'Apply
Jitter' using a keyboard shortcut. And if 'Fade' (and fade length) were
bindable to keyboard actions, they would be far more usable IMO.
> There are some usability details to be still clarified, but this is my
> general idea. Anyway, I agree that it would be similar in many ways than how
> MyPaint works (I swear I have never heard of this great application
oh, that reminds me, I gave the wrong URL, the correct URL is:
> (By the way, I think maybe it's better to explain this idea a bit a time
> while discussing with other users instead writing a long slab of text like I
> initially intended?)
Definitely, it will get developed more, that way :)
Gimp-developer mailing list