Hi Anthony, I will try to answer inline because i am not sure i understand all details
I dont understand why you are saying what i did is pure luck :) because i put the original alpha mask of the original image on the final because i dont want the alpha mask changed in final image. Are you saying that my use of morphology is not correct to expand the ? in this case i will understand. Could you send me your circle_halves.png in order i test with it to see the result anyway if you have a morphology that dont touch the alpha mask it will avoid me to extract and copy the original image mask to the final alpha_mask. Maybe i miss something, can you point me precisely where i am wrong ? thank you for your helps and suggestion. Cheers, Cedric Anthony Thyssen wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:01:13 +0100 > Cedric Pinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > | Hi, > | > | Here the script i use it seems to work fine for all my cases right now, > | i will try on futur data and tell if it works > | for most cases > | > | #!/bin/bash > | set -e > | set -x > | file=$1 > | filewithoutext=$(echo $1 | sed 's/.png//g') > | name=$(basename $1 | sed 's/.png//g') > | ./morphology -m grayscale -t erode -i 1 $file /tmp/${name}_0.png > | convert $file -alpha extract /tmp/${name}_alpha.png > | composite -gravity center $1 /tmp/${name}_0.png /tmp/${name}_2.png > | convert /tmp/${name}_2.png /tmp/${name}_alpha.png -alpha off -compose > | Copy_Opacity -composite ${filewithoutext}_final.png > | > I can see the results your script produces using my "circle_halves.png" > test image. though there appears to be a couple of unusual extraneous > pixels. in the results. > Could you send me your picture in order i test please > However I would not depend on morphology from expanding (or contracting) > the image mask as you are using it for. What should do is undefined, > and in fact logically it is doing the oppisite of what it should be doing. > Yes that's why i dont use the result of alpha mask from morphology i use the original because i want the mask not changed. But maybe i miss something in this line: composite -gravity center $1 /tmp/${name}_0.png /tmp/${name}_2.png > The fact that it does so is pure luck. I just submitted back to Fred > a improved and about 7 times faster version of grayscale morphology, > however it does not erode/dilate the transparency mask of the image! > It's better for sure > I suggest you extract the alpha mask first, the dilate it separatally. > that's why i do or again maybe my composite line i miss something. > ASIDE: the new version also has the interative blur spreading operator > that I developed in the previous email. > > I'll include a copy of that script to you. > > Fred.... Please note there is a small change to the previous one so this > version does at least preverse transparency in greyscale morphology. The > previous one wiped out transparency rather than preserve it. > > If i understand correctly you are saying is for this line: composite -gravity center $1 /tmp/${name}_0.png /tmp/${name}_2.png /tmp/${name}_0.png should not have the mask extended from morphology is that correct ? or did i miss other thing ? Thank you > > Anthony Thyssen ( System Programmer ) <[email protected]> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Sucker! All Games are Honest. > All Games have a House Percentage. > So Come on in and Have Fun -- (While We Prove It) > -- Robert Hienlien, "Podkayne of Mars" > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Anthony's Home is his Castle http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/ > -- +33 (0) 6 63 20 03 56 Cedric Pinson mailto:[email protected] http://www.plopbyte.net _______________________________________________ Magick-users mailing list [email protected] http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-users
