peter sikking wrote:
> - it is fantastic to see a fuzzy/grunge brush as a real
> "copy of the actual brush" when one is not painting, but it has to
> _contrast_ with what is under it or else it just disappears. When it
> contrasts (some X-OR variation, or so) I think it should not be semi
> transparent anymore, just exactly reflect the brush alpha value for
> each of its 'pixels'.
on the other hand, showing the brush stamp gives a good preview of drawing.
This can be taken to the extreme by setting 'idle' opacity to 100%.
But then this only makes sense for drawing in normal mode on the top layer.
And becomes totally useless for the dodge/burn tool.
Adding contrast needs some thought -- at least the standard XOR 0x7FFF7F
doesn't perform well using simple blending according to brush stamp alpha:
somebody got ideas for better algorithms?
> - that really opens up what (dynamic) paint parameters should be
> reflected by the brush when not painting: looks like brush geometry
> (brush, scale, aspect ratio, angle) yes, hardness: maybe, rest
> (opacity, spacing, jitter, color(gradient)) no.
i'd love to indicate hardness somehow. Seems to me what's interesting is not so
much the exact border of, say 25% opacity, but rather a hint about how wide the
Gimp-developer mailing list