Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
On 08/02/2005, at 1:13 PM, Geoffrey wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not selected right? Gimp 2.0.4 I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and arms). http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the selection you used. I put it on the site as well. it is recommended that you work at 400% view so that you can see if there are problems like this. I looked at it at even a greater % and still could not see any pixels that were not in the selection. another thing to do is to save the selection as a layer in your xcf so you can fix any pixels problems like this, whether it is a problem with the selection technique or with gimp. Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's a problem with GIMP. 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. The Quick Mask mode gives a full representation of a selection, by overlaying a colour (red by default) in various shades to show a selection. For some example images, http://www.danamania.com/temp/ants.jpg is the normal dotted outline view of a selection, zoomed in around the legs. This shows nothing selected on the legs themselves, as some of those pixels are only partially selected. A quick jump into Quick Mask mode (with Shift-Q or Select-Toggle Quick Mask) shows all though, and http://www.danamania.com/temp/quickmask.jpg indicates that there are some slightly red pixels on the shins, which represent areas that are only partially selected. Those are the ones that show up in Quick Mask mode, and not in the normal crawling ants view of a selection. When in quick mask mode, you can fix this by 'drawing' a selection using the normal drawing tools such as the paintbrush. Drawing in 'black' will cause an area to become selected(red), and drawing in 'white' will cause an area to become unselected(non-red) - so while in Quick Mask mode, draw over the inside area of the legs with 'white' to unselect those partially selected pixels. You should see the red go away, and it'll look like this: http://www.danamania.com/temp/quickmaskfixed.jpg Scroll around the image and look for any more of those partially red (partially selected) pixels - such as on elbows, and draw over those to clear them, hit shift-Q again, and you're back to the crawling ants view, able to delete the background as you did in the first place - but this time witho deleting those partially selected pixels you just fixed :). dana -- http://www.danamania.com/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:13:50PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not selected right? Gimp 2.0.4 I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and arms). http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the selection you used. I put it on the site as well. i looked at this. you could see with quickmask that there were some half alpha areas. i am not sure how you made the selections still, but i was able to fairly simply convert the selection to a path and back again (i did some feathering in between my steps) and the problem went away. I don't understand how there could be half alpha areas. Will the selection tool do this? This was originally a jpeg. I'm not familiar with quickmask, I'll have to look into that. I don't have an understanding of paths either, so that will be a bit of research as well. it would be someone elses call whether it is a bug or not. Agreed. I'd like to understand whether it's my failing to understand the tool I'm using or a bug. Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's a problem with GIMP. there are still ways to use the selection -- converting it to a path worked for me. the weird half selected areas were somewhat obvious with quickmask toggled. I'll play with them and see what it does for me. the image demonstrates a problem but it is not enough to determine if it is your technique or a gimp bug. also, before filing a bug report, it might be good to update your gimp to 2.2 and see if the same problem exists there. I know, I've been planning, but it's been busy. I'll download it tonight. :) if they would fix the file selector, it would be darn near perfect; as far as i am concerned. I'm afraid I agree. :) Thanks for the feedback. -- 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] Trouble with layers from psd
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 19:41 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: there are differences between the native photoshop files and the native gimp files. gimp can handle different sized layers and other things. I'm not too certain Photoshop doesn't. In fact, I believe Photoshop simply doesn't expose the fact to the interface and resizes layers on demand. gimp cannot read psd text information as editable, it reads it only as a painted layer; at least to the best of my knowledge. it would be nice if everyone would stop making psd files since not everyone can use psd. In many cases people just want to convert their old work. They don't use proprietary formats by ignorance, but simply because of a lack of option and lock-in of their software. cheers -- Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell, Inc. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd
Jakub Steiner wrote: On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 19:41 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: it would be nice if everyone would stop making psd files since not everyone can use psd. In many cases people just want to convert their old work. They don't use proprietary formats by ignorance, but simply because of a lack of option and lock-in of their software. You could also argue that you're similarily locked in when using XCF... at least on systems where you can't install the GIMP. Michael -- Lassen Sie Ihren Gedanken freien Lauf... z.B. per FreeSMS GMX bietet bis zu 100 FreeSMS/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd
Michael Schumacher wrote: Jakub Steiner wrote: On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 19:41 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: it would be nice if everyone would stop making psd files since not everyone can use psd. In many cases people just want to convert their old work. They don't use proprietary formats by ignorance, but simply because of a lack of option and lock-in of their software. You could also argue that you're similarily locked in when using XCF... at least on systems where you can't install the GIMP. Is the XCF format proprietary? If not, then this is not a valid comparison. -- 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] Trouble with layers from psd
Hi, Selon Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Michael Schumacher wrote: You could also argue that you're similarily locked in when using XCF... at least on systems where you can't install the GIMP. Is the XCF format proprietary? If not, then this is not a valid comparison. It's not proprietary, in the sense that the information needed to read/write it is publically available, however it's an internal GIMP format, and in the past people have been asked not to support reading XCFs, since the format might change radically, and without notice, if the needs of the GIMP dictated it (they didn't always agree though - ImageMagick can read XCFs). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary Lyon, France ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd
Dave Neary wrote: [...] ImageMagick can read XCFs). More or less, I heard. Often less. Michael -- Lassen Sie Ihren Gedanken freien Lauf... z.B. per FreeSMS GMX bietet bis zu 100 FreeSMS/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Default JPEG quality setting - where?
Hi, Where can I set the default quality when saving JPEG images? The default 85 is too low, I want to use 98. I could not find a suitable setting anywhere, either in config files or in menus. Where is it hidden? Right now I'm just using Save as as a workaround because then I actually see the dialog asking for the Q setting, but this is not really all that smooth. (No lectures on the default 85 being enough, thank you - it is not enough, and I can clearly see artifacts on my edited digital photographs if saved with 85.). Thanks. -- - Antti Mäkelä - http://www.cs.tut.fi/~zarhan - There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here,it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jakub Steiner wrote: Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:26:49 +0100 From: Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: GIMPUser Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu, Enesha Fairluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 19:41 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: there are differences between the native photoshop files and the native gimp files. gimp can handle different sized layers and other things. I'm not too certain Photoshop doesn't. In fact, I believe Photoshop simply doesn't expose the fact to the interface and resizes layers on demand. From my observation that is what it does alright. gimp cannot read psd text information as editable, it reads it only as a painted layer; at least to the best of my knowledge. Importing PSD Text layers as text isn't supported yet. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151686 it would be nice if everyone would stop making psd files since not everyone can use psd. PSD may not be a properly open standard but if you want to swap files with other graphics applications and still keep your layers it is the best option at the moment because lots of applications do understand PSD. Hopefully MNG or something like it will become more popular for sharing layered graphics in future but for now PSD is firmly entrenched. In many cases people just want to convert their old work. or they downloaded tutorials and samples from the web that were in PSD format They don't use proprietary formats by ignorance, but simply because of a lack of option and lock-in of their software. Very True. - Alan H ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Default JPEG quality setting - where?
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 08:19:29PM +0200, Antti M?kel? wrote: Hi, Where can I set the default quality when saving JPEG images? The default 85 is too low, I want to use 98. I could not find a suitable setting anywhere, either in config files or in menus. Where is it hidden? Open up jpeg.c, change #define DEFAULT_QUALITY to whatever, rebuild, install, and you're done. (No lectures on the default 85 being enough, thank you - it is not enough, and I can clearly see artifacts on my edited digital photographs if saved with 85.). You do get the lecture from the libjpeg documentation: Quality values above about 95 are NOT recommended for normal use; the compressed file size goes up dramatically for hardly any gain in output image quality. -Yosh ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
