On 12/05/12 18:56, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:25 -0700, Gary Aitken wrote:
>> On 12/05/12 14:00, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> [...]
>>> I admit I usually use editable brushes, which are limited to square,
>>> diamond, circle, triangle, etc., and I have keys bound to
>>> increment-by-10, increment-by-1, and the same for decrement.
>>
>> likewise, without the bindings.
>>
>>> I think wanting integer-only brush sizes would be an enhancement
>>> request, although I'm not sure I understand the motivation: scaling by a
>>> non-integral amount sometimes gives better results. But maybe integral
>>> brush sizes is just a thing I happen never to have wanted :)
>>
>> Not sure I understand that statement.
>> You apparently use integral brush sizes enough to have bound keys to
>> incrementing and decrementing by 1 and 10.  That seems to imply you
>> use integral brushes a lot, unless you always start with an odd-ball
>> non-integer brush size.
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> Yes. I pretty much only use the dynamic (editable) brushes, and all I
> care about is the approximate size in most cases. I just looked, and my
> current brush has a size of 172.36, so pressing } will make it 182.36
> and pressing ] will make it 173.36. They get to odd sizes because I
> might click anywhere on the Size slider. I also have $ and % bound to
> softer/harder by 10, and 4 and 5 for softer/harder by 1. Right now the
> brush hardness is 0.69.
> 
>> I'm not a graphic artist, but if you're designing an icon, for example,
>> or a finely detailed map as a that you want as compact as possible, you
>> sometimes want to minimize feathering, anti-aliasing, and everything else
>> that results in "partial" colors of one form or another.
> 
> Makes sense but it's a long way from cleaning up 2400dpi full-page
> scanned images for sale as stock :-) or from freehand painting, or from
> using dodge/burn on a photograph, where soft edges are needed.

agreed; I don't do those pixel things very often, but others might.

> [...]
>> If this is a feature, and if you can grant that wanting integral sizes has
>> some utility, shouldn't that be relatively easy to attain by the user?
>> I would submit that integral sizes, or something more integral than 0.01
>> increments for brush size in particular, is likely a common desire.
> 
> I suppose for people doing professional pixel-level work it may be, that
> hadn't occurred to me. I don't mean to imply that one usage is better or
> more important than another.
>
>>   It might
>> also be useful to be able to set the max and min values (max in particular).
>> I suspect there are very few people who want a brush size more than 1000
>> (but hey, I don't design billboards).
> 
> I used to recompile my own gimp with a larger maximum brush size,
> although I have not often used more than 400 pixels or so.
> 
> Being able to set a maximum might help with "Fitt's Law" - quicker
> selection of the largest size.
> 
> Even in a pixel context a square brush with a radius of 0.5 pixels makes
> sense to me though. So I'm not sure what is a good answer here. There's
> a paint tool options button to reset bitmap brushes to their "native
> size", so maybe keybindings for tool presets would let you switch brush
> sizes with a single keypress?

I agree a .5 radius makes sense; it's also a 1.0 diameter ;-).
Dang, there's a conundrum -- brush "Size" should be labelled "Radius" 
or "Max Extent" (or something like that for non-circular type brushes).

I may not be understanding correctly, but it seems like that would allow
setting of specific sizes, not the whole range one might be interested in?

What bothers me about the keybindings idea is that it is an accelerator,
and the less-proficient / less-experienced with the specific tool user 
tends to use the mouse.  Getting the desired behavior should be possible
via the mouse.

Going back to my original proposal, what downsides does it have?
It requires no changes to the interface,
some additions to preferences,
and pretty simple changes to the guts of the generic slider.
It allows arbitrary granularity and a pretty wide range of possibilities,
and is relatively simple:

  valueDelta = ((float)deltaPtr / (float)maxPtr) * (valueExtent * 100.) / 
granularityX100;
  valueDelta = (float)((int)(valueDelta * 100) / granularityX100) * 
granularityX100 / 100.;
  newValue = value + valueDelta;

e.g.:
  value=175.000  granularity=1.500  minValue=-100.000  maxValue=400.000  
deltaPtr=15  maxPtr=1024
  valueExtent=500.000000
  granularityX100=150
  deltaPtr * valueExtent * 100 / maxPtr=732.421875
  valueDelta / granularityX100=4.882812
  valueDeltaX100=450.000000
  valueDelta=4.500000  newValue=179.500000

Gary
_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Reply via email to