Re: [Gimp-user] Slow [Unsharp Mask] with particular settings

2004-08-18 Thread Carol Spears
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:14:15AM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:52:52AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
 
  Steve, please don't be so ignorant.
 
 This seems a bit rude and uncalled for.
 
well, gimp developers are not known for being polite in all situations.
pointing out when he is rude is sort of a compliment in some situations.
maybe not this one, however.

  Carol has a point here. If unsharp
  mask is slow, it makes sense to look for alternatives.
 
 Of course it does.
 
it is interesting that the autosharp plug-in is running slower than the
photoshop equivelent of the same thing.  there is a good chance that one
or the other of us is doing the wrong thing or that the gimp code is
old, simply ported along and not rewritten.

that would probably best sent in a more terse format to the
gimp-developer list.  even then, someone needs to be interested in it.
mentioning your workflow is not the best way to approach people who
are trying to think about writing software or people who are
volunteering to write software.

  There's no
  point in sticking to your workflow if it turns out that the same
  result can be better achieved differently.
 
 I don't intend to, nor did I say I planned to.
 
we were wondering if value levels (a tool and not a plug-in) worked
better than what you are using.

we do not assume that you are using photoshop properly or not.  i simply
would have accomplished what you described using the levels tool on the
image values.  

the situation you described sounded like this tool would work better.
this list is generally the sort where images are shown that demonstrate
the problem.  can you show us a photo? original, unsharp maskified and
also with the levels tweaking i suggested?  there is a very good chance
that i am incorrect here.

  So, are you certain that
  unsharp mask is better than using levels?
 
 No.
 
 The point I was trying to make in my reply to Carol, and maybe I didn't
 put it across clearly, was the following.  In general GIMP (in Linux)
 performs roughly the same as Photoshop (in Windows) on my machine.  So
 when I found this one filter that is so much slower with the same
 settings I became curious, wondering if it is to be expected, due to the
 way GIMP handles USM.  That is all.  I was not saying I will blindly use
 the function because the workflow uses it.  I was not saying that I
 won't look for alternatives.  I was not saying that GIMP sucks or has a
 bug, merely asking for an opinion from those more knowledgeable than
 myself in the workings of the USM filter.
 
most of the gimp developers use linux.  photoshop does not run on linux.
half the time we do not know what they are doing!  usually when they do
have something new, it is just a trick of the modes or something not so
clever as you might think.

yes, photoshop and gimp share many of the same stuff.  that is because
it is all computers.  graphic images on computers.  i always thought
gimp was more like paint shop pro, personally.  are you certain it
resembles photoshop that much?

yes, please do not blindly use any gimp functions.  i am also assuming
that you did not use unsharp mask blindly.  if you could show us some
examples it would make the chat about your work and your workflow more
productive.

it is way too late in the game to say gimp sucks or that photoshop
sucks.  no one even thought this.


 I do appreciate Carol's pointing out an alternative.  I sometimes feel
 though, that on mailing lists in general, a lot of friction could be
 avoided if we only answer what is asked, not what we think is being
 asked by trying to read between the lines.
 
ah, you are worried about your workflow.  i am also.  and about your
work as well.  please do not read between the lines of what i ask as
well.  a simple did you try this might actually improve your work at
the same time it improves your work flow.  this list has not ever been
about peoples work flow, it has been about the best way to handle images
with the gimp.

 In response to Alan Horkan, it is the plug-in version that I'm using.
 
examples and actual version numbers are helpful to everyone.

cheers back,
carol

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user


[Gimp-user] Blur IIR or RLE?

2004-08-18 Thread Lincoln =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lord=EAllo?=
Has any real difference between IIR and RLE blur effect?
Tanks.
-- 
Gentoo 2004.2 AthlonXP GNU/Linux-2.6.7-gentoo-dev-sources
GNU/Linux User #239576 Lincoln Lordello
 /\
 \ /  Campanha da Fita ASCII - Contra Mail HTML
  X   ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail
 / \  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user


[Gimp-user] Re: Blur IIR or RLE?

2004-08-18 Thread GSR - FR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-08-18 at 1215.36 -0300):
 Has any real difference between IIR and RLE blur effect?

Speed, use RLE for images with big areas of same colour (masks,
renderings of vector based images, cartoons, etc), IIR for those
hardly two neighbour pixels are the same (photographs, noisy
renderings, etc). Or so goes the saying.

GSR
 
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user


Re: [Gimp-user] Chrome Effect

2004-08-18 Thread Eric Pierce
Check this one out.
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/tomcat16/

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 11:00:29AM +0100, Gearoid Donnellan wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I think I may have posted about this before but I dont think I got
 a reply so forgive me for posting again.
 Im pretty new to the Gimp and so far Ive been trying to do some
 photoshop tutorials in it but I am having a major problem getting one
 of the effects the same as in PS.
 The effect is the Chrome one that is in PS. The tool dialog looks like this:
 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/drakonslair/Chrome/chromesetting.jpg
 
 Basically its starts out with a black background with five flares in
 it, one in each corner and one in the center. After the chrome effect
 is applied the image should resemble this:
 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/drakonslair/Chrome/afterstep5.jpg
 
 I want to end up with something that looks like this:
 
 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/drakonslair/Chrome/finaleffect.jpg
 
 I used the Tomcat tutorial to get something similar but its not really
 good enough so I was hoping you could help
 
 Really appreciate any help
 Gerry
 ___
 Gimp-user mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user