On 2009-09-30, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
A lot of thanks for helping me understand this problem.
>> And I can't guess reasons why you first do gimp-selection-none(), then
>> combine the orig-sel back?
> I assumed that you wanted to add together all of the fuzzy selections
> made along the path, and then combine that result with the original
> selection using the operation mode. To not do so would lead to some
> rather useless results.
>
> For example, if the operation mode were CHANNEL-OP-REPLACE and this
> was passed to 'gimp-fuzzy-select-full' then despite making fuzzy
> selections all along the path, the only thing that would matter would
> be the fuzzy select performed on the path's last point.
>
> Also consider what happens if the 'operation' mode were
> CHANNEL-OP-INTERSECT and the original selection was the entire image
> (if there were no selection originally then the final result would be
> no selection). If I merely passed the INTERSECT mode to Fuzzy Select
> then after the first x,y point on the path was "fuzzy selected", the
> resulting intersection would be only that fuzzy selection. Moving to
> the next x,y point and the resulting selection would only be the
> intersection of the two Fuzzy Selects. At any point along the path --
> including the last point on the path -- the resulting selection will
> be no larger than the intersection of that point's fuzzy selection and
> the one before it.
I read all this, and STILL have the same question...
Let me try to rephrase it... Consider two scenarios (with a particular
OP of CHANNEL-OP-*), left one and right one:
save-selection + delete-selection
do few FuzzySelects with OP do few FuzzySelects with OP
combine with saved-selection with OP
load saved-selection
Is there a case when these two scenarios are going to give different
results? My logic is: there is no difference since
a) it is enough to consider the case of one FuzzySelect;
b) for one FuzzySelect there is no difference.
On which step do you think my logic breaks?
> The "projection" is the composited result of all of the layers,
> employing all settings for the specified blend modes, opacities,
> masks, and visibilities -- it is what you see in the image window.
> There is no direct access to the projection contents from the PDB and
> since 'gimp-drawable-get-pixel' does not provide a "sample merged"
> mode
Well, since an INDIRECT access to the projection contents IS POSSIBLE,
why not allow a direct one?!
> I basically gave up on my attempt to create a By Color Select version
> because of all of the edge cases that needed to be handled: layer
> offsets and dimensions (path coordinates are relative to the image,
> 'get-pixel' uses the drawable coordinates), changing colorspaces (mask
> and channels are grayscale, while a layer may or may not be), and
> image/drawable boundaries (paths are not constrained to the image).
Could you still provide your version (non-working OK), since I *need*
to implement this anyway, and having some starting place would be a
great help.
I'm going to create a temporary small layer for each point on
the path (reuse it if the next point still fits). (I already
have code which does projection-copying.)
> If you wanted just a simple version which handled only a single layer
> (not its mask, nor a channel) which had the same dimensions as the
> image (and no offsets), and did not need to provide a "sample merged"
> option, I could write one sometime later this evening.
If you would: first, let me try to write my own version based on your
old attempt. And if I fail, I might try to use your offer as a rain
ticket. ;-)
A lot of thanks again,
Ilya
P.S. Unrelated:
I'm trying to post to the devel list, both from GMANE, and
directly. Nothing passes through. Do I need to subscribe
first before posting is possible?
_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
