On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Alexia Death <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Jenny <jenny.ding....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is my draft proposal
>> https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARZjTPkuA386ZGRmY3JteG1fOTRoZmJ4cm1keg&hl=en
>> thanks,
>> Jenny
>
> No, that was not even in the same ballpark as the idea. Integration
> with gimp was said to be optional but the project is for a paint tool
> in gimp sense. Like paintbrush tool or airbrush tool using gegl as the
> back end. The aim of this idea is the creation of that back end with
> optional GIMP integration. That back end should support paths with
> outputs and rendering of those paths either using stamping of a bitmap
> or some other sort of creation of a stroke(for example the kind ink
> tool in gimp uses now). Essentially an implementation of paint core in
> gegl.

Note that there already is code in GEGL that could serve as a starting
point/inspiration that does stroking of paths using bitmaps/potato
stamps with a procedurally generated brush, as well as a minimal
experiment testing it. Since performance of GEGL based things in GIMP
is going to be hampered by the lack of native use of GeglBuffers it
probably makes sense to also be able to experiment with such new
infrastructure outside GIMP.

-- 
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
                                                 -- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/                            http://ffii.org/
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to