Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2006-04-21 at 2311.22 -0400):
> On 4/19/06, GSR - FR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2006-04-19 at 1158.08 +0200):
> > > > How is this fairly straightforward with the current architecture? I
> > > > would rather say that it is currently almost impossible to implement
> > > > sanely.
> > > Ah, but I'm insane.
> > > Add a layer type for effect layers, and define 3 operations that you can
> > > associate with the layer (to start): curves, levels and colour balance.
> > > All the operations are pixel-by-pixel, which should make things easier.
> > > Then hack the projection code to add a special case for an effect layer.
> > Internally I would say they are blend modes. Make them special so
> > content is fixed and flat (better compression), so only layer mask
> > matters. Then make the formula for the blend mode be curves, levels,
> > colour balance... whatever you can find that is pix to pix (and
> > probably LUT based in many cases, if not all) and make it work in BG
> > while the FG is unused. The settings would be stored in a parasite.
> Excellent idea. Unfortunately, when people say they want layer
> effects most of the time what they mean is that they want spiffy
> auto-drop shadows. Of course, that's not that hard to represent with
> a few parameters. But it's not exactly something you can implement
> with a LUT. Still, I think it's pretty doable as a custom layer.
> Perhaps implementing some as blend types and some as custom layers is
> a good plan.
What I described above is what matches David text ("curves, levels and
colour balance"). He could had used the name Adjustment Layer (the PS
term) or a different description. What you describe is named Layer
Styles (in PS). People want Adjustment Layers anyway too. The main
difference I can see is that one has a layer mask as a requisite (and
the operations performed are in what that layer mask lets pass) and
the other has pixel data (and the operations are performed in those
pixels).
Global view:
http://depts.washington.edu/sacg/services/workshops/desktop/photoshop2/layers.shtml
Adjusment layers (AL, mixed with other topics):
http://www.arraich.com/ps6_tips_llayers1.htm
Layers Styles (LS):
http://www.arraich.com/effects1/aaeffects_main.htm
And from the bugs and talks in the past, what some people would like
is a "no limits" version, in which you can apply any filter. That has
a problem compared to PS ways, the order. PS declares one special kind
of layer (AL) that works in same order than others, and a reduced set
of operations (LS) applied in the order that makes sense (embossing
the result of the drop shadow? weird) to a given layer.
For a "no limits" the interface has to be reviewed, one option being
some kind of order index, other being a graph approach, in which the
user defines all the orders and relations (this would allow filters
that work with multiple input or output drawables, for example).
That is why I see AL to be the simpler to do, then LS (it would
require a system to keep the user data and swap with the result data,
depending if editing or compositing) and finally the full "you do
whatever you want" system.
GSR
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
