In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sven Neumann wrote:
>> (It was previously suggested to me that I copy the entire image and
>> paste it as a new layer in the second image, and then copy between
>> instead of between images. However, this is undesirable due to the
>> size of images I'm working with. It can take over a minute to copy the
>> entire image into a new layer; I just want to be able to copy small
>> areas of one image into another.)
> Are you using a clipboard daemon such as Klipper? It shouldn't take
> that long to create a copy.
No, I'm not using a clipboard daemon. When you're working with huge images
(24-bit 600 dpi A3 or A4 scans) and don't have the latest and greatest in
hardware, then yes, it certainly can take a long time to create a copy.
Keep in mind that the method proposed above more than triples the amount
of memory used (100% to create the clipboard copy, plus 133% to create a
new layer with alpha channel, plus who knows how much for the undo
history). On a system without much RAM this can cause a lot of swapping
and possibly even thrashing.
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Gimp-user mailing list