Uh, sorry, looks like I missed your update, you have in fact already done it without new setting... let me check.
Sorry, a bit too much happening around mypaint at the moment, I should stop trying to look at everything. On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:57:16PM +0100, Martin Renold wrote: > Okay, I think we should push this right after 1.1 is released. This needs to > be exposed to users who are willing to give feedback for a bit longer. The > release is mainly for the silent majority who will only curse instead. And > I have just discovered that the 1pixel brush is actually used in practice, > and we can't fix it by modifying the settings, becasue of the string freeze. > > About adding a new brushsetting to the GUI, I would love to say that this is > as easy as adding the new setting to the list - however, this is no longer > the case. There are some manual fixes needed now in addition. The > complexity has increased, I guess MyPaint is no longer a brush editor > prototype :-) Maybe I'll try to make it easy again after 1.1 is released. > > Regards > Martin > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 06:15:02PM +0000, Micael wrote: > > I have spent some time investigating how to put a checkbox on the brush > > property window, and found that it currently only supports sliders for > > numeric values, which are inapropriate for the solution I think is best > > (see my previous post for more info). > > > > As such, I have decided to go with David Gowers' solution for now, which > > seemed simple enough and effective. I have found a lot more difficulties > > than I thought I would though. Passing new values around the draw functions > > isn't trivial, and a lot of value-copying is happening. I think this should > > be rethought and maybe passing a struct reference/pointer would be better. > > I have however succeeded in doing this. > > > > I have rebased my repo to a recent mypaint revision, and applied a new > > patch that checks for the brush's AA value and enables/disables the AA > > codepath plus pixel-snapping. > > This enables the ability to have gapless, pixel-sharp brushes. > > > > Please test: https://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Micael <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The current AA slider should be renamed to something more appropriate, > > > like "feather" for example. > > > Enabling/Disabling the new AA algorithm should be a checkbox, and when > > > disabled the x/y coords of the dabs should be snapped to pixel centers > > > (eg: > > > "x = floor(x)+0.5"). This would allow for pixel-sharp dabs and it would > > > perform better than before since it'd also take care of the gappy strokes. > > > > > > I would do this myself, but I just don't have enough time to investigate > > > how exactly one creates a new widget in the brush settings and pass it's > > > value to the C brushlib up to the "render_dab_mask" function in the most > > > appropriate way. > > > > > > This is just my opinion on how things should be. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Gowers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I have tried your code and I find that it's a great improvement in terms > > >> of consistent thickness for thin lines, whether those lines are hard or > > >> soft edged; it's much more fun and predictable. I actually prefer it for > > >> pixeling, because those 2-pixel-wide dabs constitute a majority of the > > >> work > > >> on a pixel piece. The only lack is the inability to paint at a 1px detail > > >> level (again, not only for hard edged brushes; your patches effectively > > >> 'thicken' all <2px brushes to approximately 2px). > > >> > > >> IMO the logical way to turn off AA is by checking whether the brush > > >> 'antialiasing' value is < 0.001. I haven't spotted a fast way to do that > > >> yet. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Micael <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> @Martin: The final deltas calculate the difference between the "rr" > > >>> value at the farthest and nearest positions inside the pixel to get an > > >>> idea > > >>> of how much should we fade out the pixel. Since this value can be <1 > > >>> (but > > >>> never <0 since rr_far is always >= rr_near), we make it so that it will > > >>> always be >=1, so that the final division will always fade out the > > >>> pixel, > > >>> instead of fade it in (dividing by >=0 <1). This also makes sure that a > > >>> division by zero will never occur. > > >>> > > >>> @David: antialising is all about removing hard edges, and since > > >>> currently the patch doesn't offer an option to disable the AA codepath, > > >>> it's currently impossible to guarantee "pixel-snapped" edges. At most > > >>> you > > >>> can guarantee that a dab with diameter of <=1.0 will never occupy more > > >>> than > > >>> 4 pixels (if painting near a pixel's "vertex"). > > >>> > > >>> The experimental/1pixel definitely needs a snap-to-pixel-no-aa option so > > >>> that the brush will always paint at a pixel's center, and not go through > > >>> the AA codepath. > > >>> > > >>> The AA-attempt code also needs to be fixed to not allow <=0 radius dabs. > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM, David Gowers <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> >for example "experimental/1pixel" is now > > >>>> >broader than 1 pixel. (Not our most important brush.) > > >>>> > > >>>> That seems ok as long as it's possible for me to fix it to actually be > > >>>> 1pixel again; or at least that proper hard-edged dab rendering is still > > >>>> possible. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'll check out if that is the case ASAP. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Martin Renold <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> hi Micael > > >>>>> hi David > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I think your patch is good now. But it affects existing brushes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> David (or anyone else working on brushes): could you please test your > > >>>>> brushes with this branch? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint/commits/master > > >>>>> git clone git://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint.git > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would like to know if it's okay to use this for 1.1, or if we better > > >>>>> do it > > >>>>> after the release, to give more time to check and re-tune brushes. > > >>>>> Most > > >>>>> brushes profit from this change I think, especially dynamic ink > > >>>>> brushes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Some are definitively changed, for example "experimental/1pixel" is > > >>>>> now > > >>>>> broader than 1 pixel. (Not our most important brush.) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Some small sharp ink brushes may look a bit blurred now. I have > > >>>>> noticed this > > >>>>> with "deevad/soft_dip_pen" from set #2. Maybe they can be retuned. > > >>>>> The > > >>>>> settings "hardness", "anti-aliasing" and "opacity" are good > > >>>>> candidates. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Martin Renold > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Mypaint-discuss mailing list > > >>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Micael Dias > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Micael Dias > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Micael Dias > > -- > Martin Renold > > _______________________________________________ > Mypaint-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss > -- Martin Renold _______________________________________________ Mypaint-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss
