in GAP I would like to see 
- repaired .APNG support (import and export)
- .MNG (import and export)
- numbered .BMP's as frames (used in a number of video frame conversion 
programs) (import and export)
- .AVI (import and export, but you can limit the kinds of video formats you 
to support, since there are MANY)
- .flv (import and export) (I think it already does this)
- .swf (import and export)

and if someone really feels like doing it, .mpg and .vp8 files and some of the 
modern formats.  I believe mplayer can read a lot of these formats, and what 
mplayer does not read, ffmpeg does. ffmpeg even does AVI[MJPEG] which is what 
camera puts out.

Jim Michaels (my personal site, has software) (group which I lead)
Computer memory/disk size measurements:
[KB KiB] [MB MiB] [GB GiB] [TB TiB]


Note: disk size is measured in MB, GB, or TB, not in MiB, GiB, or TiB.  
memory (RAM) is measured in MiB and GiB.

From: Olivier <>
To: LightningIsMyName <>
Sent: Sun, August 29, 2010 1:37:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Wish: A better animation system inside GIMP

2010/8/29 LightningIsMyName <>

>Forgot to mention that it would also require to change most animation
>scripts and GAP...
>On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Olivier <> wrote:
>> You seem to be interested only in animated GIF?
>> Even in this case, are you aware of the GIMP Animation Package?
>> Olivier Lecarme
>First of all, yes - I am aware of GAP and I used it several times
>(although I'm still not completely familiar with it).
>Still, abusing layer names must stop and this is my main request - and
>in order to stop this we must introduce a very simple animation editor
>(since we have many animation scripts and it should be possible to
>edit their result). GAP is very good and complicated, and I'm
>referring to something much simpler only to edit the frame
>duration/disposal (instead of the ugly layer name hack) - nothing
GAP is not very complicated, simply it is not well described.

If you are interested in multi-layer animations, the duration and mode of 
is obviously a layer property. Why not use the layer name for this? It is 
available and not very useful for anything else in this precise case. 

Olivier Lecarme

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to