Just checking if this works...
Testing 1 2 3
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music. --Kristian
below 0,0,0, and the lightest color above 255,255,255, it comes
in handy.)
On 11-Nov-2002, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 05:44:52 -0500, Patrick McFarland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, that todo is pretty cool. But Is there any way to push 16-bit rendering
earlier? Or is there any
lossless. Without
32-bit interim support, it's lossy. (The same phenomenon renders
all sorts of 8-bit transformations in complex workflows very poor in
the current generation of gimp).
My 2 cents.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 08:13:53AM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Though, my method
Yep, mutt is going to die. Yet again it refused to reply to the list and
instead replied to just the person.
Reply is as follows:
On 11-Nov-2002, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Patrick McFarland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Erm, dunno why this didnt reply to the list. To those who missed
stuff
Has any work actually started on GEGL? From what I understand, no, none has.
Even though GEGL is for gimp 2.0, there is no reason why we cant start
developing this now. It might take awhile to get a good model started.
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't
Cool, but I was talking about more overt development.
On 14-Nov-2002, Branko Collin wrote:
On 14 Nov 2002, at 5:22, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Has any work actually started on GEGL? From what I understand, no,
none has. Even though GEGL is for gimp 2.0, there is no reason why we
cant
I would, but the xcf loader plguin is mad broken on x86. If you could figure
out whats wrong with it and fix it, I would be very appreciative.
On 14-Nov-2002, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Has any work actually started on GEGL? From what I understand, no, none
has.
Even
I was thinking about using film gimp originally, but the XCF loader is broken,
I dont know how to fix it, and the developers for film gimp have no interest
in fixing it.
On 15-Nov-2002, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-11-14 at 2317.54 -0500):
Cool, but I was
Well, three things could be causing this. GTK's interaction with X (or whatever
target you built GTK for). It can be Gimp's interaction with GTK. (Probably not
unless you have a really old GTK, or a really old Gimp.) Lastly, It can be your
incredably outdated kernel and/or libc.
On 23-Nov-2002,
On 15-Nov-2002, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-11-14 at 2317.54 -0500):
Cool, but I was talking about more overt development.
What about gimp-film or gegl lists? GIMP devel is always done via
lists, IRC, CVS and bugzilla.
Check
On 27-Nov-2002, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
I have the feeling that the gap between GIMP and Film Gimp is widening
more and more, instead of shrinking until the two versions can be
merged in the same codebase. I understand that the development on the
HOLLYWOOD branch has different constraints than
On 28-Nov-2002, Sven Neumann wrote:
the point is that the new film-gimp maintainer or any of the people
working on film-gimp don't communicate with us at all. The project
somehow came back to life without any notification on this
mailing-list. We had to hear about it in the news. Among
On 29-Nov-2002, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:55:06 -0500, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2002-11-28 at 1259.18 -0500, Patrick McFarland typed this:
Hrm. Side note, They got $1k from Linuxfund to further their project... hrm...
$1k would not be enough
On 29-Nov-2002, David Neary wrote:
Hi all,
David Hodson wrote:
My feeling is that Filmgimp should be a tool specifically (or
at least, primarily) for the film industry. It is very likely
to develop along lines that are (at best) not useful to, or
(quite possibly) totally unwanted by,
Merging both does not require the removal of features from either
tool. The added value of Film Gimp comes primarily from its 16-bits
support and its frame manager (and specialized plug-ins). But
unfortunately, it is based on an old core, which lacks many features
that are present in the
On 29-Nov-2002, David Weeks wrote:
The gimp community? REALLY? You could ixnay on the inuxlay, but not GNU.
I feel for anyone trying to port gimp to windows, but I don't care about their
work.
To hell with Windows. Why would we care about windows?
Windows has Photoshop, as does
Why doesnt gimp have a webcvs setup?
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music. --Kristian Wilson,
On 30-Nov-2002, Tino Schwarze wrote:
Apart from that, one often needs a copy of a layer to create some
effect. Combined with effect or active layers, one would only need to
alter the source layer and everything else would change by itself.
That is the coolest thing ever. Santa, I want
On 30-Nov-2002, Robin Rowe wrote:
A lot of text about how film gimp is trying to be its own thing.
Well, first I would like to say film gimp should be moving to a GEGL target.
Not because film gimp is gegl, but because gegl is so damn useful. (Well, will
be useful if/when it gets done.) And gegl
I want to develop stand alone 24bit - 8bit converter function, and also a
bicubic resizer. Now, I noticed gimp has really high quality versions
would it be possible to convert gimps functions to do:
(with the converter) take an int 24bitimage[width][height] and return a
char
On 01-Dec-2002, Michael J. Hammel wrote:
Maybe not. Consider that having competing branches can push the advancement
of both. This is true of any research or commercial development. In this
case, the discussion on 16bit support has been nudged yet again - perhaps
enough to make real
On 02-Dec-2002, Lourens Veen wrote:
And guess what, it fixes all GIMP bugs too!. After all, GIMP is part
of GNOME, so if you don't install GNOME, there won't be GIMP, so
there won't be any GIMP bugs! Yay!
Erm, maybe this is a stupid redhat thing, but I thought GIMP just used GTK,
(ala, it
On 04-Dec-2002, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:49:05AM +0100, Tino Schwarze wrote:
I'm just curious: What do you get by using 32-bit _float_? Why not use
1.31-Bit Fixed Point? It should have a higher precision than 32-bit
float - at least, it's precision is steady.
On 09-Dec-2002, Stephen J Baker wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Sam Richards wrote:
I would like to stress that some of the film-industry interest in
filmgimp is as much for the floating point as the 16 bit. The need for
floating point is for High Dynamic Range imagery which is used as a
On 09-Dec-2002, Stephen J Baker wrote:
I'm not suggesting that this would be useful to GIMP - but that other
developers who are working in 3D using modern rendering hardware will
soon need support for 32 bit floating point texture maps.
So, I was pointing out that floating point imagery is
On 10-Dec-2002, Sven Neumann wrote:
the plan is not to have 16 bit or 32 bit or floats but to offer a
framework that allows to handle image data more or less independently
of its representation. GEGL is the framework and it already supports
floating point, 8bit and 16bit integer. Adding more
On 14-Dec-2002, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
I agree that with Sven that it's wrong to call GIMP for Windows a
separate project. The distribution for Windows has its own webpage,
but if something about it should be called a project, it involves
just the building and packaging of a distribution. I.e.
On 18-Dec-2002, Sven Neumann wrote:
suggests to replace the term Alpha in the GIMP user interface by the
terms Transparency and/or Translucency. This could need some
discussion here, that's why I'd like to point the fellowship of
gimp-developer to this report. Please keep the discussion on the
On 20-Dec-2002, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:29:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what I thought as well...but the scaling with imagemagick was causing
pixelation.
Scaling up or down? With which filter? (You're sure you resampled and not did
a simple
On 23-Dec-2002, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
1) How do I create an image with an alpha channel (and set the value
of the alpha channel)? This is specifically so I can test alpha
channel handling in Gimp-print. Specifically, I want to move the
alpha channel handling (and the color map
Hey all, its me again.
First I would like to say Im not trying to start a flamewar here... but will
the win32 Gimp target ever support Photoshop plugins, and will the *nix x86
Gimp target ever support Photoshop plugins via Wine?
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games
So this means that, when gimp stable uses gtk2, no more win32 port of Gimp?
(In this context, if an app compiles cleanly on an os with no code
modification, then it isnt a port)
On 26-Dec-2002, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
I finally had time to try again, and after some head scratching and
Makefile.am
Tor, sf.net wont remove the wingimp project until you, or any other
qualified gimp developer tells them to. The project is already breaking atleast
one rule, the one about only developers for a project can start a sf.net
project about the said project. Please take care of this before it gets out
On 19-Mar-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
MArk Finlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Everyone loves a good splash screen, but now Gnome has
startup-notification which kinda makes them superflous. Startup
notification lets you know that your applications is starting but it
is not as
On 03-Apr-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
well, actually this is just an initialization and MAXPATHLEN is a
rather bad choice anyway. I'll just change it to some sane fixed
value instead.
So _what is_ a good sane fixed value?
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't
I say we just use 2.0 for the first stable tree using GEGL. This entire
argument sucks, imho. The first stable tree using GEGL has been called 2.0 for
so long, why call it anything else now?
It isnt about GTK2, or about Gnome2, or about any thing else. Its just what
someone started calling it,
On 22-Jun-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
I'd say we go for 64MB.
Yes, I agree. If it changes at all, it should be 64.
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching
On 18-Jul-2003, Christopher Curtis wrote:
The 1.9.x Building GIMP 2.0 branch
o GEGL -- Gimp 'E' Graphical Library
o GCim -- The convergence integrated media object and utility library.
I am one of these active users that have been lead to believe that gimp 2.0
will use GEGL. So, all the
On 19-Jul-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
We might do another 1.2 release but I doubt that this will happen and
it would surely be just be a bug-fix release with no new feature
whatsoever. GIMP-1.3 is close to being released as 2.0 and support for
1.2 will be dropped then.
Releasing the stable from
So, if gegl isnt going to be in gimp2, when will it be?
Ive been waiting for gimp2 awhile now, and now that gegl wont be in it, I have
to keep waiting. How long will I have to wait now? 2.2? 2.4?
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if
On 21-Jul-2003, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
On Monday 21 July 2003 4:47 pm, Adam D. Moss wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
So, if gegl isnt going to be in gimp2, when will it be?
Ive been waiting for gimp2 awhile now, and now that gegl wont be
in it, I have to keep waiting. How long
On 26-Jul-2003, Daniel Egger wrote:
I think the problem is that 1.2 is far more used in productive work
because artists and designers are afraid running software which is
stamped alpha or beta more than just occasionally.
Wrong, Im an artist, and I prefer 1.3 over 1.2.
--
Patrick Diablo-D3
On 27-Jul-2003, Daniel Egger wrote:
Good for you. I know at least 6 persons who do not. :)
However I'm quite interested in your reasons, would you please elaborate
so I can get some feeling what to tell people when they ask me reasons
for using 1.3.
Well, the tabbed dialog boxes, docks, are
On 27-Jul-2003, Branko Collin wrote:
On 26 Jul 2003, at 18:19, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Wrong, Im an artist, and I prefer 1.3 over 1.2.
Did you prefer 1.3 in January 2001?
Did 1.3 exist in january 2001?
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids
On 29-Jul-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
Yes, we should probably have Convert to Pixels for text layers.
Since internally we wouldn't really convert, should we perhaps even
stick a Convert to Text Layer menu entry to any ex-text-layer so it
can be converted back if necessary?
Actually, you
On 29-Jul-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
I wouldn't mind if you or someone else filed bug-reports for these two
issues...
The Convert To Pixels bug is here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118547
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean
On 29-Jul-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
I don't want to discourage you and it's certainly a nice expert/geek
feature but I doubt that the casual GIMP user wants to type in any
formulas.
No, but I doubt the casual GIMP user cares about a feature they arnt smart
enough to use yet. AFAIK this isnt a
dOn 01-Aug-2003, Kevin Myers wrote:
Helps if you have a 4D ball mouse (like I do), instead of only a 3D
wheel mouse. :-)
Seriously though, mainly responding because I want to make sure the Gimp
developers know that there ARE mice out there with built-in miniature track
balls (2D) on top
On 24-Sep-2003, Tino Schwarze wrote:
BTW: Is it possible that there is a 3 Gig limit on per-process memory?
The machine has 6 GB, no ulimits and I got a could not allocate x
bytes message when I gave 3 Gig tile cache to GIMP (it took about 500
Meg for other stuff, so I settled with 2.5 GB tile
On 21-Oct-2003, David Neary wrote:
118547Convert Text Layer To Pixels / Render Text Layer
Wow, my bug is so important, its listed.
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in
Nuclear weapons good!
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc,
On 24-Oct-2003, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Nuclear weapons good!
Am I the only one getting spam via the mailing list?
--
Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms
On 25-Oct-2003, Steven P. Ulrick wrote:
The way I typed it made it sound like I was saying that Patrick was using
Sven and Branko's e-mail addresses to spam the list. This was not my
intention, and I want to publicly apologize to Patrick. I truly regret any
embaressment or confusion that
On 25-Oct-2003, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 03:37:51PM +0200, Branko Collin wrote:
Are you sure you are getting spam via the mailing list? Did you only
look at the From field, or also at the Received fields?
They are definitely sent via the list:
1) They are
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 01-Jul-2004, David Neary wrote:
Hi all,
I got home today, and was surprised and happy to see a large
donation to the project from distrowatch.com. They apparrently
have a policy of contributing regularly to various open-source
projects, and this month it was us.
A big thank you goes
56 matches
Mail list logo
