[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] missing pixels
Dana Sibera wrote: On 10/02/2005, at 1:19 AM, Geoffrey wrote: I had no idea that GIMP could select a portion of a pixel. How is it that it can select a % of the pixel? It depends on the way you make the selection in the first place. If you just use the lasso to select areas, then gimp will select only what's inside the area you draw. If you use the Select-Select By Color tool and click on an area of colour, depending on the Threshold value other colours will be partially selected as well. This is useful when you may wish to make a selection that contains most of the sky in a photo, but that sky may contain grades of colour that stretch across anything from white to light blue. Hmmm, I used the 'select contiguous regions.' I guess that it will do the same as you modify the threshold. I find I use it to make subtle colour shifts - say selecting an area by colour and adjusting colour balance slightly in that area. It's not always so good for selecting large areas to be accurately deleted, or to do other really dynamic changes to :). I again appreciate your insights. -- 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: Default JPEG quality setting - where?
William Skaggs weskaggs at primate.ucdavis.edu writes: First, jpeg still achieves substantial compression, and is still lossy, even at a quality setting of 100. Yes, I know (see Henrik's post) Second, the jpeg docs recommend not using quality settings above 95, because they greatly increase the file size without improving the image quality. Again, the at Q=98 the file size is about the same as the camera provides already, so no waste of space happening.. Third, there is no way to change the defaults in GIMP 2.2 except by editing the C code for the jpeg plugin, but we are working on a way to do this that should apply to all plugins, and you can expect it to be available in GIMP 2.4. Thank you! I already did the change in the source code (and it works), but good to know that there is some progress happening. There does not seem to be any schedule or roadmap on GIMP 2.4 available yet, but do you have any estimates on when 2.4 would be coming? This year? First half of 2006? Later? -- - Antti Mkel - 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] 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] Trouble with layers from psd
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:03 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: while i have no idea what the developers are doing, either as a group or individually (it is always just a guess about everything and anything, not just gimp stuff), i always thought that they kept the ability to read psd to a minimum to force people away from stealing and using photoshop. it would make sense if you look at it like a war. I'd say quite contrary. Giving the abilkity to read PSD will make it possible for people to convert their old work and give them a way to escape. THEN i spent a week following things on #gimp some. there was lots of talk and exchange of facts about the gimp raw plug-in. i haven't seen anything here about the raw plug-in, but i did see that Adobe has released an updated raw thing themselves. all this stuff, and i just got to sit back and ask myself, whatsup? Jakub, do you know whatsup with all this? As for the raw format (DG, Digital Negative), Adobe did the right thing and published the spec. [1] [1] - http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html, http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/license.html -- Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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, Carol Spears wrote: Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:03:30 -0800 From: Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED], GIMPUser Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:40:13AM +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote: On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:13 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:26:49PM +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote: 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. define lock-in please. Lock-in as in f*ck I'm screwed now i have to use Adobe products to have access to all my work. everyone has their own things that lock them into something and out of other things. while i have no idea what the developers are doing, either as a group or individually (it is always just a guess about everything and anything, not just gimp stuff), i always thought that they kept the ability to read psd to a minimum to force people away from stealing and using photoshop. it would make sense if you look at it like a war. If anything being able read PSD files makes it easier to move files away from Adobe Photoshop and into the GIMP. I think the ability to write good PSD files would do more to keep users from working with both the GIMP and Adobe Photoshop but I never believe the developers would deliberately keep functionality to a minimum. I would have thought that developers rather choose to work on the many other challenges that interested them more instead and because the lack of specifications from Adobe made the job a lot more difficult. people who save their work in psd must be 1) secure that their place of employment will always use photoshop and computers that run it or PSD files are understood by Paint Shop Pro and most most other graphics software because Adobe did provide some specifications for a while and even if they do not provide the same kind of information for the latest versions of PSD they are dominant enough that others have made an effort to provide some compatibility. If you want to share files with users of other graphics software (besides the gimp) without flattening the image then PSD is the most obvious choice for sharing Layered images (MNG isn't widely supported yet and if there are other good choices they are not as obvious as PSD). 2) fairly certain they will always be able to afford it or steal it. photoshop has done its part in the world to continually demand that everyone purchase bigger and better computers with each new release; everyone counts on things that i have found to be not dependable. Adobe Photoshop Elements is not as extortionately priced as the full commercial version of Adobe Photoshop, apparantly the older verison is even bundled with some digital cameras. Cheap versions of Photoshop can be legally obtained, I expect I could pick up a second hand copy of Photoshop 6 quite cheaply (the university I attend has some copies of PS6 on special machines). For the ordinary users that doesn't understand or care about Free Software that isn't such a bad deal. But my point is that with PS Elements and cheap older versions there are probably more legitamate Photoshop users than ever. i get upset with the independent groups. i cannot remember the graphic but someone appeared on #gimp with a psd for an event that was sponsored by a group that was supposed to be all for freedom (it was anti-music or anti-copyright, iirc). I'm surprised they didn't flatten the image to a PNG file but there really isn't that much choice if you want to preserve layers in a format that a wide range of applications will be able to understand. THEN i spent a week following things on #gimp some. there was lots of talk and exchange of facts about the gimp raw plug-in. i haven't seen anything here about the raw plug-in, but i did see that Adobe has released an updated raw thing themselves. all this stuff, and i just got to sit back and ask myself, whatsup? - Alan H. ___ 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 Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote: On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:03 -0800, Carol Spears wrote: while i have no idea what the developers are doing, either as a group or individually (it is always just a guess about everything and anything, not just gimp stuff), i always thought that they kept the ability to read psd to a minimum to force people away from stealing and using photoshop. it would make sense if you look at it like a war. I'd say quite contrary. Giving the abilkity to read PSD will make it possible for people to convert their old work and give them a way to escape. heh, weird. usually i am the optimistic one. :) THEN i spent a week following things on #gimp some. there was lots of talk and exchange of facts about the gimp raw plug-in. i haven't seen anything here about the raw plug-in, but i did see that Adobe has released an updated raw thing themselves. all this stuff, and i just got to sit back and ask myself, whatsup? Jakub, do you know whatsup with all this? As for the raw format (DG, Digital Negative), Adobe did the right thing and published the spec. [1] [1] - http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html, http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/license.html okay, that is cool. better to have an enemy who is somewhat healthy and plays fair! carol ___ 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
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Default JPEG quality setting - where?
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:32:56 -0500 Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what is normal use? Websites? What would be a good quality value for a jpeg used on a website? I suppose like every one else, I have done some experiments and am surprised that sometimes a quality of 15-20% is fine for websites. The eye and mind are so easily tricked. I suspect if you want to see something, you will see that, rather than what is there. Owen ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] JPEG
I'll admit up front to not having followed the conversation so far. What quality levels you use on JPEG depends heavily on the type of data you are wanting to store, you quality requirements, space requirements, etc. As an example (worked up for a map conversation) http://broggs.org/~mcbeth/CivMap.png http://broggs.org/~mcbeth/CivMap.jpg The point of the demonstration was to show that JPEG isn't always smaller, and that it isn't always appropriate for your data. The newer JPEG preview in the GIMP save dialog helps a lot in making those kinds of decisions. If I am completely off topic, I'm sorry, I have to deal with inappropriate uses of JPEG files all the time in my work :( Jeff This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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?
Antti Mäkelä 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? (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. I assume your camera is outputing jpeg. Does it have a raw or tiff output as well? The raw you'd have to drag through a converter thats specific to your camera, but you could probably write that out to tiff. As others noted, while working on the photo, save to gimp's native file format. After that, save as tiff or png for lossless compression. I also seem to remember that saving above the low 90's actually resulted in larger files (than the input) with no real improvement in image quality. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Default JPEG quality setting - where?
Owen wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:32:56 -0500 Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what is normal use? Websites? What would be a good quality value for a jpeg used on a website? I suppose like every one else, I have done some experiments and am surprised that sometimes a quality of 15-20% is fine for websites. The eye and mind are so easily tricked. I suspect if you want to see something, you will see that, rather than what is there. I wish that worked on my bank account.. -- 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. So. TIFF format can have layers, and that is documented (although just using the 'normal' blending mode). Can Photoshop work with layered TIFF's? I think the support for layers in TIFFs is a lot easier to achieve than trying to figure out the PSD file, since the TIFF standard is documented, and that would be a good format for interchange of layered images. What do you say? JS -- ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Boring old artistic question--no philosophy
I would like to make an arch like the one seen in the logo on the top of the page at http://www.rma.usda.giv/ The arch is symmetrical but not a piece of an arc. And it has one color on the outside and another on the inside. I'd appreciate any assistance anyone has to offer. I like this shape.I want to use it. I am no artist--possibly I could just freehand it, but I'm not good enough. And the fill blend is nicely done. Thanks- Jim Clark
Re: [Gimp-user] Boring old artistic question--no philosophy
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 21:15, Jim Clark wrote: I would like to make an arch like the one seen in the logo on the top of the page at http://www.rma.usda.giv/ The arch is symmetrical but not a piece of an arc. And it has one color on the outside and another on the inside. I'd appreciate any assistance anyone has to offer. I like this shape.I want to use it. I am no artist--possibly I could just freehand it, but I'm not good enough. And the fill blend is nicely done. Allright. (Ok - if anyone did wants to see it, it is obvioulsy a .gov site, not a .giv) You are asking for the vectors created with the Path tool (The one following the scissors on the toolbox). Give it a try - play with it - check the vectors dialog in the Layers dockable. Remember that you have to CTRL + Click on the starting node to close a curve. You can Stroke a path, in the edit menu, and convert a path to a selection, and later fill it with the Path tool itself. Regards, JS -- Thanks- Jim Clark ___ 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
One of the admins at my work purportedly uses Macormedia's Fireworks for raster image editing. He told me that the default file format is png! I called him a bold faced lier, but he swears up and down that png is the default format. I asked him about layers, and he said the pngs that Fireworks saves can DO LAYERS. I haven't seen it firsthand... is there any truth to this!? And getting back to an earlier debate (file format 'lock-in' / divide and conquer), I've read somewhere that MS Word stole the word processing scene back in the day by: 1) implementing a damn near perfect WordPerfect (word pro leader at the time?) import filter but (in)conveniently lacked any WordPerfect output filter. 2) offering Word inexpensively For what it's worth, I think the Gimp would excel and enlighten if it had the best psd import AND export filter as possible. But I've learned to live with the current state of the psd filter at work. I use Gimp for 95% of my work (web devel/print work), and the main print guy uses PS for everything. The times when our work overlaps, I can conveniently save to psd for him from the Gimp if layers are an issue, and that has been a decent working solution for the 2+ years I've been at my current employment. Implementing the import/export of a dynamic text layer from psd would be a nice addition though. Eric P. On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:10:14PM -0200, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote: Hi. So. TIFF format can have layers, and that is documented (although just using the 'normal' blending mode). Can Photoshop work with layered TIFF's? I think the support for layers in TIFFs is a lot easier to achieve than trying to figure out the PSD file, since the TIFF standard is documented, and that would be a good format for interchange of layered images. What do you say? JS -- ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user ___ 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
Eric Pierce ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [MM Fireworks] He told me that the default file format is png! I called him a bold faced lier, but he swears up and down that png is the default format. I asked him about layers, and he said the pngs that Fireworks saves can DO LAYERS. I haven't seen it firsthand... is there any truth to this!? PNG can handle custom application specific chunks of data, so it is perfectly possible that Fireworks uses custom data blocks, not specified in the PNG standard. I have no idea if MM published these extensions, but a PNG file just using the standard chunks cannot handle multiple layers. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ ___ 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
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Budig Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:09 PM To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd PNG can handle custom application specific chunks of data, so it is perfectly possible that Fireworks uses custom data blocks, not specified in the PNG standard. I have no idea if MM published these extensions, but a PNG file just using the standard chunks cannot handle multiple layers. http://www.macromedia.com/support/fireworks/export/fw_export_vs_sav/fw_expor t_vs_sav02.html And, no they don't publish the extensions. Anyway, Fireworks can import PSD files with the text layers. I'm 101% positive Adobe didn't tell Macromedia how to do this, so if Fireworks can, maybe some smart GIMP person can. HTH, Greg ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
