Hi,
Emmanuel Mwangi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Anyways, all that is far off. I was wondering you could just have nested
>> layers in this next version of Gimp. It doesn't even have to have all
the
>> strange but, cool stuff that tigert was talking about but, even just
being
>> able to organize your layers and having the ability to group them
>> hierachially and turn a group's visiblity on and off, and being able to
>> move a layer from one group to the next, etc.
>
>I have very strong doubts that allowing layer trees in Gimp-1.4 would
>mean you'd get layer trees earlier than if you'd wait for Gimp-2.0. In
>fact I believe it would only mean that you wouldn't see a stable Gimp-1.4
>before 2003.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't mean layering should change in any way than
it does now (except maybe adding Photoshop style color dodge ;) but, just
the representation of it should. The way the layers stack isn't the change
that I was thinking about but rather, the way they are represented in the
dialog.
Currently: V-Visibility
V-Layer 1
V-Layer 2
V-Layer 3
V-Layer 4
V-Layer 5
One can turn Visibility off for one dialog.
V-Layer 1
-Layer 2
V-Layer 3
V-Layer 4
V-Layer 5
Now with the layers:
V-Layer 1
- V-Group L2-4
V-Layer 2
V-Layer 3
V-Layer 4
V-Layer 5
They are stacked in the same order as before. But, you can:
V-Layer 1
+ V-Group L2-4
V-Layer 5
Which, in reality it is no different than:
V-Layer 1
V-Layer 2
V-Layer 3
V-Layer 4
V-Layer 5
Now when we turn a group of layers off:
V-Layer 1
- -Group L2-4
V-Layer 5
In reality is:
V-Layer 1
- -Group L2-4
-Layer 2
-Layer 3
-Layer 4
V-Layer 5
The layer object Group L2-4 is a parent to Layers 2-4 but, isn't really a
layer itself (i.e. doesn't have pixmap data) but, a container of layers.
Layers 2-4 are children to GroupL2-4 and inherit the visibility of the
parent. And this is just crude visibily, not the 0-100% slider scale
visibilty, just seen or unseen. The layers keep their individual slider
scale of 0-100% visiblity. The layers are linear just like before but, now
it's the organization that has changed. This is terribly useful for images
that have 20, 30 even 50-100 layers; I've seen people that use that many.
Not to patronize your skills but, that doesn't seem as hard. Just a simple
tree list view. Though it would be nice to have the ability to nest groups,
just having groups would be a great addition.
Not really the hyper complex relational layers for Gimp 2.0.
And the code can later be modified to make a variation of Group/Container
layer into a masking layer for a group of children layers. This would be
more complex and thus be in Gimp 2.0
That being said, I wish I could code better but, I'm in my second semester
of Programming here at Biola (not exactly known for it's Comp. Sci. Dept)
and I would like, no love to be able to send a patch for this. I've looked
at the Gimp code before. Even for a novice like me, it is apparent how
hairy that beast is.
Since I can't code, I'd be happy to write docs. I'm busy but, by the time
you guys are done (hopefully in the summer) I could start writing
documentation.
I'm sorry if this has been redundant but, I just want to be clear.
>The problem implementing all this in the current code tree is that the
>current code is a mess. The layers dialog is especially messy. So what
>we will do is clean up that mess first, then port to GTK+-2.0, then
>release 1.4, then take all the nice new code, add GEGL and PUPUS and
>release Gimp-2.0 shortly after.
For Gimp 2.0, how much of it will be Bonoboized?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
