Here it is,
now please, help us doing something constructive here.
I see hat a small misundesratnding on teh e-mails had degenerated into
an unneded flamewar.
I see what you want and is lacking: the "real time" display of the
selection's aspect ratio. i don't know why Sven has failed to
identify this is what you were talking about from the very beginning,
and as a matter of fact I do not care about this.
I have to say I dislike the way you have reacted so far against the
project and the developers, as for the wording used. We all -
developers, and users, had spent a lot of time in this discussion
that could otherwise be more productive.
The above python script is a hackish way to display the aspect ratio
of the selection whenever you release the mouse button. To make use
of it, drop it in your plug-ins directory, mark it as executable
(only needed under unix/linux), and activate it in the select menu.
(If you are under windows you may have to install some extra things
in order to have python scripts running)
Now if you can write without offending people, I am sure that
displaying the aspect ratio while the selection is being done can be
considered for 2.6
On Saturday 29 December 2007 19:08, Thomas Worthington wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:42:54 -0000, Bob Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Thomas Worthington wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:40:09 -0000, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> > [..]
> >> Since I use the click-drag a lot when working on websites, an
> >> extra twiddle with an extra menu is a nuisance and 2.2 remains
> >> the better choice for me especially as I also do a lot of
> >> cropping and I need to see the ratio as I select the area to be
> >> cropped. I've just re-installed 2.4 and confirmed that this is
> >> simply impossible now, whereas it was part of the default
> >> display on 2.2's crop tool. That's a clear step backwards by any
> >> rational measure of usability, and if you can't see that then
> >> I'm at a loss as to what is going on in your mind.
> > Excuse me for jumping in, but maybe I've missed something in the
> > "discussion"; I'm not really sure I understand what you are
> > trying to achieve.
> > a) Do you know the ratio you want to end up with before you start
> > cropping?
> I usually have a target ratio and some leeway. So I might know that
> the ideal is, say, .618 but that .6 to .63 will look okay if that's
> what I have to use to clip out something that I don't want in the
> picture. I don't think this is an unusual situation to be in. I
> know the ratio of the target space or page but I also know that the
> user won't notice/care about a minor deviation in margin sizes.
> > b) Or, do you want to crop an area you like, and end up with
> > whatever that
> > ratio happens to be, and be able to see it and take note of it
> > (and probably
> > use that value later)?
> I need to do do this quite often too. Certainly in a set of
> pictures I need to keep each one to the same aspect ratio even if
> the one choosen is not the "ideal" one.
> > If a), then I don't follow why setting the exact ratio in the
> > tool is difficult to do. It ensures the crop will be exactly what
> > you want, without
> > having to watch the current ratio and stop dragging at just the
> > right spot.
> > If b), then I agree that 2.4 does not show the ratio information,
> > as far as I can see.
> I think this is the case. 2.2 worked very nicely for real-world
> situations where an exact ratio was not as important as a decent
> picture (within reason) while *also* making it quite easy (albeit
> not AS easy as 2.4) to hit that exact ratio when needed. As I say,
> the 2.4 method seems a clear step backwards to me.
> Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user mailing list