Re: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
William Skaggs wrote: For people who would be interesting in learning a bit more about this topic, it might be worth taking a look at the related help docs, http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch02s04s04.html and http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch04s03s05.html Thanks for the links. -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
Olivier Ripoll wrote: Well, think as a human being (not a coder, nor an artist). What do you call transparent in life ? The windows of your house or office, be they perfectly clean, dirty or tainted are transparent. You feel intuitively that transparency is not a binary property, it is a continuum of states. You would never qualified a door opening of opaque and transparent, but you use open and closed. My problem with that thought process is that I think of transparent, translucent and opaque. Transparent is the unreachable clarity of perfectly 'invisible.' Seeing through something as if it's not there. Translucent is that characteristic where what you're looking through 'affects' what you're looking at, not distorting it, but reducing the clarity. Opaque is just that, can't see anything behind it. I never considered anything like 'partial transparency' until I started playing with GIMP. Seems I recognize that functionality in some cases, but not others. For example, I do recall playing with the transparent slider for a layer, knowing full well that it provides a % of transparency. That makes more sense now, after my confusing problems with selection. -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
Geoffrey wrote: Dana Sibera wrote: It's a problem, but not so much a bug as a limitation of the 'crawling ants' view that shows a selection. Pixels aren't just 'selected' or 'not selected' in that image, there are some pixels which are 10% selected, 20, 50, 80, 100% selected, and so on. The crawling ants outline view of a selection however, doesn't show anything more than a binary representation - presumably with a cutoff of 50%, meaning you only see the dotted outline around pixels that are more than 50% selected, and those under 50% show as unselected, which includes the areas that are showing up as problems in the shins for example. I had no idea that GIMP could select a portion of a pixel. How is it that it can select a % of the pixel? You misunderstood. A portion of the value (RGBA) of the pixel is selected, not a portion of the pixel geometry. Think of it like a phantom (ghost, whatever you call it): The shape of the human body is totally preserved, but you can see through it. Sincerely, Olivier ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
Olivier Ripoll wrote: You misunderstood. A portion of the value (RGBA) of the pixel is selected, not a portion of the pixel geometry. Think of it like a phantom (ghost, whatever you call it): The shape of the human body is totally preserved, but you can see through it. Still, I didn't know you could have a partially transparent pixel. I thought transparency was at the pixel level, that is either a pixel was transparent, or it was not. Then again, I've a coder, not an artist or image expert. -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
RE: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:02 AM To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels Olivier Ripoll wrote: You misunderstood. A portion of the value (RGBA) of the pixel is selected, not a portion of the pixel geometry. Think of it like a phantom (ghost, whatever you call it): The shape of the human body is totally preserved, but you can see through it. Still, I didn't know you could have a partially transparent pixel. I thought transparency was at the pixel level, that is either a pixel was transparent, or it was not. Then again, I've a coder, not an artist or image expert. No. RGB images have another channel - Alpha - that determines transparency. However, not many image formats use the alpha channel (PNG, TIFF, PSD, and XCF being the only ones I know of). GIF kinda uses it, but it does have that binary behavior you're talking about. Greg ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
For people who would be interesting in learning a bit more about this topic, it might be worth taking a look at the related help docs, http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch02s04s04.html and http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch04s03s05.html Best, -- Bill __ __ __ __ Sent via the CNPRC Email system at primate.ucdavis.edu ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
