On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 06:16:13PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> COW is indeed a good thing. However I assume you address the mentioned
> memory overhead with your answer and I'm not sure how you would avoid
> it with copy-on-write.
You're completely right. It was a thinko on my part, I ha
On 23 Feb, Nick Lamb wrote:
>> Does this mean that you agree to ditching all the special code
>> for the 3 and 1 byte case as well? I'd really love to see this
>> changes although as already stated this might introduce a bit
>> memory overhead in case the user didn't use the alpha channel
>>
On Friday, 23 Feb 2001, Nick Lamb wrote:
> If we can get back COW during 1.3 this overhead is zero (all new
> channels / layers etc. can be created as COW tiles with the
> apppropriate contents -- huge speedup).
>
> I believe COW was lost because there were problems making it stable
> with all t
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 06:30:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does this mean that you agree to ditching all the special code
> for the 3 and 1 byte case as well? I'd really love to see this
> changes although as already stated this might introduce a bit
> memory overhead in case the us
On 22 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:
> We'll face one problem if we decide to make alpha the default for all
> images: A lot of fileformats do not understand alpha and you actually
> don't want to save the alpha channel with the image at all if you
> never touched it. One way to solve this would be to
Hi,
Jens Lautenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's just think of your casual user who never understood nor even
> heard of layers or that gimp has something like this. He just want's
> to edit a single layer, and starts to clear a selection, or use the
> eraser. In my opinion such a comp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) writes:
> I think that confusing the first category of users (those who do not
> think in terms of layers) would be worse. Many users are still using
> the Gimp as they would use xv, Windows Paint or other simple tools:
> they do not care about layers and they
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Seth Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know you're trying to make a point, but I'd actually
> agree with that assessment too, if for slightly
> different reasons. The user has no way of knowing
> what shade of gray they are about to place on the
> image. I don't think t
Zach,
I know you're trying to make a point, but I'd actually
agree with that assessment too, if for slightly
different reasons. The user has no way of knowing
what shade of gray they are about to place on the
image. I don't think this is used anywhere near as
commonly as layers/transparency, so
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
> Seth Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, I strongly dislike having an eraser tool that
> > behaves differently based on a property of an image
> > you can't even see. It really stinks.
> >
> > What I'd prefer to se
Seth Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I strongly dislike having an eraser tool that
> behaves differently based on a property of an image
> you can't even see. It really stinks.
>
> What I'd prefer to see is a "replace color" paint tool
> that can handle bgs or any other layer the wa
Well, I strongly dislike having an eraser tool that
behaves differently based on a property of an image
you can't even see. It really stinks.
What I'd prefer to see is a "replace color" paint tool
that can handle bgs or any other layer the way eraser
works now on a bg layer.
Keeping the user ex
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:42:06PM +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'd vote for always having an alpha layer. seems to be cleaner
> conceptually.
I'd vote AGAINST this. Imagine if you use GIMP without any layer
functionality, and suddenly you find that cut & erase change to do
differe
On 22 Feb, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
> what remains in this case is that things like clear selection (on the
> bg layer) suddenly start to behave differently, depending if there's a
> layer above the background layer or not. Ick.
> I'd vote for always having an alpha layer. seems to be cleaner
>
Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Yes. But I don't think we should always add the alpha channel. Just
> do it automatically as soon as there is more than a single layer in
> the image.
>
what remains in this case is that things like clear selection (on the
bg layer) suddenly start
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) writes:
> Several months ago, there was a discussion about RGB vs RGBA images,
> and why the background layer was "special" and required the option
> "Add Alpha Channel".
For some obscure reason the same discussion came up again yesterday
when Mitch and me
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) writes:
[...]
> > Consider the following cases, which should all produce a file with
> > transparency, if the File->Save plug-ins were working as the user
> > would expect:
> > - Create a new image, u
Several months ago, there was a discussion about RGB vs RGBA images,
and why the background layer was "special" and required the option
"Add Alpha Channel". IIRC, the conclusions were:
- because it saves memory -- which is useful for huge images, but it only
makes sense if you disable undo and
18 matches
Mail list logo
