[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-03-21 at 0124.53 +0100):
Related to this, I would love to have a function that would enable me to
create a layer mask from alpha channel or apply it to the existing mask.
Is not that what I did in script-fu long time ago using 1.2? The only
problem I had is that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-03-11 at 1828.24 +0100):
are you saying that we'd best remove the Anti-Erase feature from the
current development version because it is broken by design and only
works by accident (often but not reliably)? That's how I interpret
your words but I want to be sure...
Would just antierase users be happy with layers masks? This feature is
ignored a lot, and I think it does the same, you hide and unhide areas
as you want, keeping the colour info. If yes, get rid of antierase.
GSR
Or, as I suggested in an earlier email, but I don't think was stated
very
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:33:14PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote:
Or, as I suggested in an earlier email, but I don't think was stated
very clearly, implement anti-erase as a layer mask (whether or not the
user can actually see the extra layer).
If you want to implement anti-erase as a layer
David Necas (Yeti) wrote:
If you want to implement anti-erase as a layer mask, then
for antierase to be available, this layer mask (not shown to
user) has to be present all the time (if not, the
information needed for anti-erase would be lost).
But how this situation differs from separate alpha
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:53:45PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote:
Although back on the topic of anti-erase, I think that the only way to
do anti-erase correctly is with another layer. Once alpha goes to zero,
the pixel no larger part of the sampled image.
OK, I could use alpha in a wrong
* Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 23:38]:
Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote:
Would just antierase users be happy with layers masks? This feature is
ignored a lot, and I think it does the same, you hide and unhide areas
as you want, keeping the colour info. If yes, get rid of
David Necas (Yeti) wrote:
OK, I could use alpha in a wrong sense, it's a matter of
definition, and let's agree on yours (though I wonder how's
called the object alpha==0 pixels are part of, because
I can draw on them, unlike pixels outside layer boundaries,
so they exist and are part of
