Raphael, can I ask you a thing?
You could maybe just add (or ask someone to add) a zero-out
transparent pixels on the layers menu.
This will make you possibly happy, and will NOT arbitrarily throw away
data that is relevant to more than one group of users as this thread
had shown.
Maybe, if
Hi,
Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could maybe just add (or ask someone to add) a zero-out
transparent pixels on the layers menu.
There's a perl script in gimp-perl which does just that:
Image-Alpha-Clear Alpha
Sven
___
Ok, I managed to change my png plugin to handle cleaning out all
transparent pixels.
What do you say? Is it interesting to go in right now? If it is a PNG
recomendation, then it might be a nice add on, and it is small enough
to go in even now, before the first pre-2.0.
a 640x480 pix image
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:45:56PM +, Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's quite equivalent to letting the user take the saturation
knob down to zero and then coming back later, turning up
the saturation again and wondering where the original colours
To just throw in another personal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
However, the layer effects people want is (in my eyes) exactly that:
apply some saturation effect to a layer that you can later change
without loss of fidelity.
And that'd be pretty groovy, and it'd work BECAUSE the
layer effect is conceptually (and
Hi,
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 17:59, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
Basically, the model that we should promote is:
- layer mask= hiding mechanism, reversible
- alpha channel = pixels that are cleared have undefined RGB data,
not reversible (except for undo)
Breaking this model
Actually, this will be quite possible with the custom layer mode I
was cooking a couple months ago, and which I plan do revive to Gimp
2.2 ..
As an effect that applyes to the layer itself,like the dissolve
layer mode, instead of on combinations, it is doable there.
One will just have to write
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
To just throw in another personal opinion: The behaviour you describe
wrt. saturation would be hilarious. It's even implemented that way in
current gimp _until_ you say OK. After which you have to
(comparatively) clumsily have to re-adjust it.
If
Stephen J Baker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
To just throw in another personal opinion: The behaviour you describe
wrt. saturation would be hilarious. It's even implemented that way in
current gimp _until_ you say OK. After which you have to
(comparatively) clumsily
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:51:13PM +, Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
While I sometimes find the erase tool conceptually difficult to use
(maybe because it's so unusual), the question is wether this is just a
weird added feature (as
Raphaël Quinet wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:31:29 -0200, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could maybe just add (or ask someone to add) a zero-out
transparent pixels on the layers menu.
[...]
I do not care (yet) about clearing the transparent pixels, destroying
color data, using
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:55:06PM -0200, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, this will be quite possible with the custom layer mode I
was cooking a couple months ago, and which I plan do revive to Gimp
Right, still I disagree in practise, and here is why:
While it can be
Stephen J Baker wrote:
I would rather hide that widget from Joe Public to avoid confusing him
than to unnecessarily destroy valuable data.
Let me say this one more time: If GIMP produces truly undefined data
where Alpha is zero - then GIMP will become utterly useless for
painting texture maps for
Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You consider that in certain circumstances this behaviour could
be considered a bug.
Yes, because presenting undefined data to the user should be avoided.
I mostly agree with you, but there are reasons for me wanting the feature
implemented as the
On 17-Dec-2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Conceptually, I agree that alpha = 0 means that the RGB value of the pixel
is undefined. Alpha = coverage; coverage = 0 means no pixel is there. Gone.
Inexistent. On the other hand, mask = 0 does NOT mean that the corresponding
pixel is inexistent, as
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:09:45AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Script-Fu scripts? In the days of GIMP 1.1.x there used to be a
script which aided in the updating of Script-Fu scripts from the 1.0
API to the 1.1/1.2 API but I don't see one in the 1.3 CVS copy of GIMP.
16 matches
Mail list logo
