On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just
checked support for reading (writing will come
Hi,
Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Today I saw another reason for XCF to be taken more seriously as an
interchange format by the GIMP developers (or at least to document
the format and its effects better).
In rec.photo.digital somebody wrote in the thread 'IMatch cataloger /
On 16 Dec 2001, at 14:58, Sven Neumann wrote:
Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of
images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of
ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for
that.
my
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable
interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF
which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support
into various other apps will
Hi,
Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable
interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF
which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support
into various other apps will make that
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
(http://www.imagemagick.org).
Right now you'd need to get
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode
to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly.
That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too.
For whatever reason, most (all?) of
Hi Leonard,
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
handled via the commandline, and having the ability to use
On Tuesday, 4 Dec 2001, Seth Burgess wrote:
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
handled via the
At 06:06 AM 12/4/2001 -0800, Seth Burgess wrote:
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF,
I am pretty sure that I do, but I'll hack up some files and try it
out. It already deal with the differences between the old and new headers.
Now, I don't expect it to be easy
Appreciated. But it does sound like you'd also not be interested
in my adding XCF writing support to ImageMagick then either??! (which is
fine, I have other things to work on ;).
My two cents ... Personally, I am in favor of XCF support in ImageMagick.
Bill Sebok Computer
Hi,
Jon Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, this is bothersome. I expect XCF to grow and change and improve but I
also expect a certain amount of backwards compatability.
I'm using Gimp in a production environment and I'm storing all of my
original artwork images (anything with layers)
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:06:56PM +0100, René [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use
imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing
support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:28:07AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time,
btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work.
Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant
having
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Raphael Quinet wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right.
At 12:16 PM 12/4/2001 -0600, Stephen J Baker wrote:
(Although it *does* mean that ImageMagick had better not be using
any GIMP code to help out it's decode/display of XCF's or it'll be
in breach of GPL)
No GIMP code - at least not verbatim.
We don't use glib and we have our
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:35:55AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your own
user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to support new
features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be able to read
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked
support for reading (writing will come
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
(http://www.imagemagick.org).
Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of the standard
5.4.1 distribution due on Friday.
Leonard
21 matches
Mail list logo
