On 25.01.13 at 1:42 PM Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
So I would suggest to revisit straightening horizon use case and
I agree. Straightening the horizon is a very often and thus important
use case.
limiting the amount of lines in transformation tools to a minimum.
I don't think that would
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:02 PM, scl wrote:
limiting the amount of lines in transformation tools to a minimum.
I don't think that would solve the problem. To rotate the image precisely
There are tons of use cases when you don't need to rotate precisely,
and the grid gets in the way.
The
On Friday, 25. January 2013 11:30:40 scl wrote:
I'd say, it depends on the images the particular user usually works
with. While a screen or web designer might work with small images the
most time, a photographer or scientist works with much bigger images.
Different users have different needs
El 25/01/13 16:54, Daniel Hornung escribió:
On Friday, 25. January 2013 11:30:40 scl wrote:
I'd say, it depends on the images the particular user usually works
with. While a screen or web designer might work with small images the
most time, a photographer or scientist works with much bigger
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 20:54 +0100, Daniel Hornung wrote:
What if not the number of lines were fixed but the distance between lines in
screen units (physical distance or fixed amount of pixels)? I could nearly
always live with a line every 10 or 20 pixels, and would find it very
convenient
Hi,
I find the default of 15 lines for the grid in transform tools quite
annoying most of the times. When you're transforming small things the
grid really gets in the way.
I think a more conservative setting, say 3 or 5 would be more a flexible
default.
What do you think?
Gez
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 23:35 -0300, Guillermo Espertino (Gez) wrote:
I think a more conservative setting, say 3 or 5 would be more a flexible
default.
Yes, probably; I have the default set to 135 lines, which is still not
very many when you have a 10,000-pixel-wide image.
Liam
--
Liam Quin
