Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > > into various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps > > I'm thinking too idealistic here... > > What's so bad about XCF anyway? It's got a version identifier, and > it's a tagged format so old loaders can skip sections they don't > understand. The only problem is the fixed tile size, yes? not really. OK, the file format does allow additions by adding new property tags. These tags are integers which will lead to problems as soon as XCF is not only used and extended in The GIMP. Imagine another application wanted to use XCF since it's such a great and widely understood format for multi-layered images, but needs to add some information which is not yet there. If they'd extend the property enum, they'd risk that someone else used the same tag for another addition. Since current XCF lacks a lot of features, extensions are very probable. With the current scheme, I imagine the whole thing will get ugly very soon. > Representing the same information in XML or whatever the sexy standard > is this month doesn't buy us anything over what we have now. Hmm, a format with properly namespaced tags would at least avoid the problems I've outlined above. It doesn't need to be XML, though XML would definitely not be a bad choice to define the structure of an image and all the metadata people might want attach to it. > Especially since the code used in loading and saving XCF is by now > fairly mature and (hopefully!) bug-free. Re-coding it is only going > to introduce new bugs. See the recent article linked off Slashdot > about why throwing your code away and starting again is a bad idea, > using Netscape and MS Word as examples of large projects which tried > to re-code from scratch and failed: Netscape went bust, and MS quietly > canned the Word re-write project. > > We should learn from the mistakes of others :) I personally don't think the Netscape people made a mistake here and I do believe that carefully rewriting an app piece by piece is the best thing that can be done for most apps. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > into various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps > I'm thinking too idealistic here... Well I'm thinking the same way, maybe we're all idealists. Maybe we should just tell these people that we feel the same way about XCF as JASC do about PSP, Adobe do about PSD. If we wake up and decide to invert the meaning of 50% of flags, re-arrange the structures and then add fourteen mysterious new values that's OUR problem, and trying to "standardise" our private format makes no sense. There is a mostly completed, free/open standard for storing lots of related image data called MNG. It was primarily targetted at animation but the higher levels include IMHO sufficient expressiveness to store image layer stacks, icon collections or any other type of multi-image format. http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/ With a few public "required" chunks added you could express any image layer stack in this format and no-one loses their private format for future expansion (which is the harsh reality of what will happen if we support these plans to implement XCF in other apps) Nick. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On 16 Dec 2001, at 14:58, Sven Neumann wrote: > "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of > > images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of > > ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for > > that. > > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF which > isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support into > various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps I'm > thinking too idealistic here... Don't ever stop being idealistic! :-) However, there may be a real world need for XCF support in other apps right now. The ImageMagick team might be better equiped to judge wether they need XCF support than we do. Also, if some entity decides they need XCF support, they should run into a brick wall when they try and find out more from us. >From what I understand, the hardest part is to make sure that any effect (even as simple as adding pixels from two layers for the screen) looks the same in GIMP as in any other program. I do not think that is necessary. Rather, the users should be informed that if they take something that needs to be rendered, they should be aware that there may be differences between renderings in different programs. (This should perhaps be in the Help files under the chapters for the import/export plug-ins for XCF and PSD and other such formats.) And of course, the way the GIMP renders images should be documented somewhere. All IMHO. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On , 16 Dec 2001, Sven Neumann wrote: > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > into various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps > I'm thinking too idealistic here... What's so bad about XCF anyway? It's got a version identifier, and it's a tagged format so old loaders can skip sections they don't understand. The only problem is the fixed tile size, yes? If we need to make the tile size variable we just bump the version number and introduce a new tagged section for the tiles. Representing the same information in XML or whatever the sexy standard is this month doesn't buy us anything over what we have now. Especially since the code used in loading and saving XCF is by now fairly mature and (hopefully!) bug-free. Re-coding it is only going to introduce new bugs. See the recent article linked off Slashdot about why throwing your code away and starting again is a bad idea, using Netscape and MS Word as examples of large projects which tried to re-code from scratch and failed: Netscape went bust, and MS quietly canned the Word re-write project. We should learn from the mistakes of others :) Austin ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Today I saw another reason for XCF to be taken more seriously as an > interchange format by the GIMP developers (or at least to document > the format and its effects better). > > In rec.photo.digital somebody wrote in the thread 'IMatch cataloger / > workflow questions' about XCF support for a program called Imatch. > The poster would like to see this support, because he keeps edits of > his digital photos as .xcf files, IMO an altogether sensible use of > the format. And of course, a catalogue program should be able to deal > with XCF files then. > > I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of > images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of > ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for that. my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support into various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps I'm thinking too idealistic here... Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote: > Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just > > > > checked support for reading (writing will come > > > > later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library > > > > (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > > > > > > if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time > > > and effort, but I guess it's too late now to discourage > > > you from trying to read XCF. > > > > OK, I'll bite... > > > > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick > > be "a bad idea and wasted time and effort"? Because > > XCF is changing? Because GIMP users would use GIMP > > to convert image formats? Because no one really uses > > XCF as a file format? > > (1) Because the XCF format may change at any time and will do so > sooner or later. > (2) Because to mimick the way GIMP projects its layers and channels > you have to implement all layer modes which boils down > to copying or reimplementing a lot of code from The GIMP. This > will become worse as soon as XCF will be extended to handle > text and effect layers. You will end up either rewriting or > copying the GIMP core. > > (3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats > ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. Today I saw another reason for XCF to be taken more seriously as an interchange format by the GIMP developers (or at least to document the format and its effects better). In rec.photo.digital somebody wrote in the thread 'IMatch cataloger / workflow questions' about XCF support for a program called Imatch. The poster would like to see this support, because he keeps edits of his digital photos as .xcf files, IMO an altogether sensible use of the format. And of course, a catalogue program should be able to deal with XCF files then. I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for that. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On 4 Dec 2001, at 8:00, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 02:22 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> >- This may be controversial, but ImageMagick has a BSD-style license
> > that includes the "advertising clause".
>
> ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
> ImageMagick is copyrighted by ImageMagick Studio LLC, a non-profit
> organization. ImageMagick is available for free, may be used to
> support both open and proprietary applications, and may be
> redistributed without fee.
Erm, that's a license you have given right there. There may not be a
lawyer behind it, but it is still a license.
I realise that for coders thinking of all these pesky legal matters
is a nuisance more than anything else, but there are coders on trial
for not looking at the legal small print at this very moment. We may
not like the laws, but they are the laws nonetheless.
Here's the ImageMagick license as the main ImageMagick FTP site lists
it:
COPYRIGHT Copyright (C) 2001 ImageMagick Studio, a non-profit
organization dedicated to making software imaging solutions freely
available.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files
("ImageMagick"), to deal in ImageMagick without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of ImageMagick,
and to permit persons to whom the ImageMagick is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of ImageMagick.
The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind,
express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and
noninfringement. In no event shall ImageMagick Studio be liable for
any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of
contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection
with ImageMagick or the use or other dealings in ImageMagick.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the ImageMagick
Studio shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the
sale, use or other dealings in ImageMagick without prior written
authorization from the ImageMagick Studio.
> > This is not compatible with
> > the GPL and this means that any code contributed to ImageMagick
> > and any improvements that could be done in that code cannot be
> > re-used later in the Gimp (maybe in a plug-in, but not in the
> > core).
I'll have to look it up again, but the way I understand it, the
ImageMagick license is a free software license, compatible with the
GPL. Also, since you are allowed to add extra licenses to the GPL
(IIRC, again, I'd have to look it up and am too tired at the mo to
wade through the legal mumbo-jumbo), it would perhaps be possible to
bring ImageMagick code under the GPL
And of course, if we thought we could use some ImageMagick code, we
could always ask the authors to also bring the bits of code we need
out under the GPL. One is allowed to publish his/her own works under
several, differing licenses.
>I would not expect that any of the code that is written to
>support XCF in ImageMagick would make it way back into Gimp (since it's
> really us trying to support things you already do). HOWEVER, you are welcome
> to take ANY code from ImageMagick and incorporate it into the Gimp to
> your heart's content!
This is a license too, although I am not sure you are enough of a
legal representative of ImageMagick to supply it.
Oh, and IANAL.
--
branko collin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote: > Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked > > > > support for reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the > > > > ImageMagick library (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > > > > > >if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I > > >guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. > > > > OK, I'll bite... > > > > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad > > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because > > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one > > really uses XCF as a file format? > > (1) Because the XCF format may change at any time and will do so > sooner or later. In a well documented way, I hope, so that the ImageMagick people can support the new format without too much trouble. > (2) Because to mimick the way GIMP projects its layers and channels > you have to implement all layer modes which boils down to copying > or reimplementing a lot of code from The GIMP. This will become > worse as soon as XCF will be extended to handle text and effect > layers. You will end up either rewriting or copying the GIMP core. My guess IM already has to do similar things for PSD. Admittedly, I only took a brief look at the PSD specs and the PSD load plug-in of GIMP, but they did not seem to be too different (with the exception of course of PS features of version 5 and newer). > (3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats > ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. As mentioned, not in a way that will keep layers and such. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:35:55AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your own > user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to support new > features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be able to read > those files, your changes would have to be backwards compat. We can easily write our XCF loader to handle multiple file formats. (There are already two XCF file versions; the loader identifies the version based on a magic cookie in the header and changes its loader behavior appropriately; the saver uses the oldest version that is able to accurately represent the image being saved.) We're not really that concerned with older GIMPs being able to read XCF files saved by newer GIMPs. -- I love catnip mice. It's why I chew their heads off. They're good for breakfast. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 12:16 PM 12/4/2001 -0600, Stephen J Baker wrote: >(Although it *does* mean that ImageMagick had better not be using >any GIMP code to help out it's decode/display of XCF's or it'll be >in breach of GPL) No GIMP code - at least not verbatim. We don't use glib and we have our own imaging engines, so all that stuff got rewritten but I did keep the general structure of loading pretty much the same so that it would be easy to make changes in the future. If anyone from the Gimp team wants to review it for potential "too much copying and GPL infractions", please feel free and I will make any changes! Leonard ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Raphael Quinet wrote: > On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote: > > > ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is: > [...] > > In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license > > (in Copyright.txt). > > > > (and I think it is very much BSD-like). > > Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the license is BSD-like > but without the advertising clause. So it is compatible with the GPL > and therefore the code could be re-used in the Gimp if necessary. (Although it *does* mean that ImageMagick had better not be using any GIMP code to help out it's decode/display of XCF's or it'll be in breach of GPL) Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.link.com Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sjbaker.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote: > > ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is: [...] > In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license > (in Copyright.txt). > > (and I think it is very much BSD-like). Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the license is BSD-like but without the advertising clause. So it is compatible with the GPL and therefore the code could be re-used in the Gimp if necessary. Sorry for this confusion. I should have re-read the license before commenting on it. -Raphael ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:28:07AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time, > >btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work. > > Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant > having GIMP and temp files. True, and the filter I wrote for this was written before gimp had miff-support. > saving of .miff is better than GIMP's reading of them. It can > only handle about 50% of features in MIFF. Back when I implemented it, it implemented the common subset of miff and gimp. If the format has changed so much that it is a problem, I could improve the miff saver. (this is unrelated to the xcf discussion, btw). -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 05:07 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote: >ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time, >btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work. Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant having GIMP and temp files. >gimp should be able >to save .miff files, too, although I am not sure how tested that is. saving of .miff is better than GIMP's reading of them. It can only handle about 50% of features in MIFF. Leonard ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
>ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is: If ImageMagick does not have a license, it's not legal to use it in a lot of countries. In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license (in Copyright.txt). (and I think it is very much BSD-like). -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:06:56PM +0100, René <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use > imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing > support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time, btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work. gimp should be able to save .miff files, too, although I am not sure how tested that is. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, Jon Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, this is bothersome. I expect XCF to grow and change and improve but I > also expect a certain amount of backwards compatability. > > I'm using Gimp in a production environment and I'm storing all of my > "original artwork" images (anything with layers) in .xcf.gz files. > > I'll export the images that actually get used on web sites to web friendly > formats but I always keep any original image using layers stored as an > XCF. > > If I read your email correctly I shouldn't do this because I risk coming > to work one day, upgrading gimp, and finding my entire portfolio of > production images un-openable in the tool that created them. you got me wrong. If we ever decide to change our file format, we will always assure that GIMP can read (and probably also write) the old format. We will also try our best to extend older GIMP versions so they can at least read the new format (fortunately this can easily be achieved through plug-ins). Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
> Appreciated. But it does sound like you'd also not be interested > in my adding XCF writing support to ImageMagick then either??! (which is > fine, I have other things to work on ;). My two cents ... Personally, I am in favor of XCF support in ImageMagick. Bill Sebok Computer Software Manager, Univ. of Maryland, Astronomy Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~wls/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 06:06 AM 12/4/2001 -0800, Seth Burgess wrote: >I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, I am pretty sure that I do, but I'll hack up some files and try it out. It already deal with the differences between the old and new headers. >Now, I don't expect it to be easy to implement (involving significant >chunks of the core, as Sven mentioned), but if you've got that covered >please do add it! It doesn't support all the different layer compositing modes, but it does fully support loading multi-layered RGB and grayscale images and respecting their layer opacity and visibility settings. Leonard ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tuesday, 4 Dec 2001, Seth Burgess wrote: > I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be > exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon > request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best > handled via the commandline, and having the ability to use gimp's working > format is a big bonus. > > It makes us bump the version number when we upgrade the image format, but we > try to do that anyway. > > Now, I don't expect it to be easy to implement (involving > significant chunks of the core, as Sven mentioned), but if you've > got that covered please do add it! Me too! I think being able to convert XCFs with ImageMagick would be a very useful tool. Just make it clear to users that the rendering they see may not be pixel-for-pixel the same as the gimp version (eg because of slightly different rounding of values combined in layers, etc). Austin ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi Leonard, I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best handled via the commandline, and having the ability to use gimp's working format is a big bonus. It makes us bump the version number when we upgrade the image format, but we try to do that anyway. Now, I don't expect it to be easy to implement (involving significant chunks of the core, as Sven mentioned), but if you've got that covered please do add it! Happy GIMPing, Seth Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:04 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > >The idea to use XCF in an AbiWord document makes me shudder. > > The AbiWord folks actually liked the idea! I don't know how many > people will actually use it - but it's nice to have and it continues to > improve the integration of "GNOME Office". > > > >For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode > >to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly. > >That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too. > > For whatever reason, most (all?) of the products in this space > have chosen to use IM (or something similiar) to do the conversions rather > than going to GIMP. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's because they > can interact with IM directly from Java, Perl and PHP instead of having to > build "batch files" and then run Gimp (higher overhead). > > > >I don't think XCF is intended to be a file format for image > >distribution. > > OK. If that is not the intent, it's not the intent! > > > >It is as much a bad choice for image distribution as > >Photoshop files are, or Word files for exchanging text documents. > > I would argue that for "non-simple" images, the Photoshop format > has a lot going for it! Sure, if all you want is a "flat bitmap", it's WAY > OVERKILL - but for layered CMYK images with clipping paths, it's the way to > go! In fact, I once had a client with the requirement of taking CMYK > images with 16million colors and either transparency or clipping into > PDF/PS documents. The only image format that met the requirements was > Photoshop/PSD. > > > >It's sole purpose is to save intermediate states of your work and > >probably exchange it among GIMP users. > > In that case, I definitely WONT implement saving as XCF! > > > Leonard > > > ___ > Gimp-developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer __ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode > >to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly. > >That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too. > > For whatever reason, most (all?) of the products in this > space have chosen to use IM (or something similiar) to do the > conversions rather than going to GIMP. If I were to guess, I would > suspect it's because they can interact with IM directly from Java, > Perl and PHP instead of having to build "batch files" and then run > Gimp (higher overhead). yes, the GIMP batch mode sucks and we know that. Actually I do point everyone who asks about batch conversion to ImageMagick. This will improve considerably in GIMP-1.4, but convert will probably stay the tool of choice for most batch-conversion jobs. > >It is as much a bad choice for image distribution as > >Photoshop files are, or Word files for exchanging text documents. > > I would argue that for "non-simple" images, the Photoshop > format has a lot going for it! Sure, if all you want is a "flat > bitmap", it's WAY OVERKILL - but for layered CMYK images with clipping > paths, it's the way to go! In fact, I once had a client with the > requirement of taking CMYK images with 16million colors and either > transparency or clipping into PDF/PS documents. The only image format > that met the requirements was Photoshop/PSD. Unfortunately you are probably right here, but this does not make PSD a better format for image distribution (because it is proprietary and poorly documented). Actually we discussed a better XCF format on #gimp lately and one of our goals was to design an image format that could serve our needs in The GIMP but would also be open for things we don't support (yet). An important aspect of the design was to make it easy for other applications to read, modify and create this format. Such a format would serve well as a distribution and exchange format for complex image data and should of course be supported by ImageMagick. I don't know if it would be possible to define a format that would meet the additional very GIMP-specific requirements that came up during the discussion, so we might end up defining a very GIMP-specific XCF2 format again. However it seems there is the need to come up with an image format for distribution and exchange of complex image data. Instead of spreading the existing XCF format, which is very limited, we should evaluate existing formats and if we come to the conclusion no such format is available, we can create our own, document and implement it. This can and should be a combined effort of at least the GIMP and the ImageMagick developers, probably including GNOME and KDE people. I promise I'll try to write down our thoughts on a better XCF format soon, but I have to get back to work now... Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 02:04 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: >The idea to use XCF in an AbiWord document makes me shudder. The AbiWord folks actually liked the idea! I don't know how many people will actually use it - but it's nice to have and it continues to improve the integration of "GNOME Office". >For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode >to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly. >That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too. For whatever reason, most (all?) of the products in this space have chosen to use IM (or something similiar) to do the conversions rather than going to GIMP. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's because they can interact with IM directly from Java, Perl and PHP instead of having to build "batch files" and then run Gimp (higher overhead). >I don't think XCF is intended to be a file format for image >distribution. OK. If that is not the intent, it's not the intent! >It is as much a bad choice for image distribution as >Photoshop files are, or Word files for exchanging text documents. I would argue that for "non-simple" images, the Photoshop format has a lot going for it! Sure, if all you want is a "flat bitmap", it's WAY OVERKILL - but for layered CMYK images with clipping paths, it's the way to go! In fact, I once had a client with the requirement of taking CMYK images with 16million colors and either transparency or clipping into PDF/PS documents. The only image format that met the requirements was Photoshop/PSD. >It's sole purpose is to save intermediate states of your work and >probably exchange it among GIMP users. In that case, I definitely WONT implement saving as XCF! Leonard ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 02:22 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote: - XCF is designed for internal use by the Gimp while one is editing an image but it is not supposed to be used for the "final" images to be distributed to other people. Other (standard) formats such as PNG or JPEG should be used if one wants to share and image with others. So no one should use XCF as a file exchange format (except among Gimp users, maybe). Personally, I think that's a short sighted decision (see my previous mail for the reasons), but it's your call - not mine! And if that's the general opinion (and you folks can live with it), then I'll stop work on the XCF coder. Should I remove it, since you feel it might cause confusion?? - This may be controversial, but ImageMagick has a BSD-style license that includes the "advertising clause". ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is: ImageMagick is copyrighted by ImageMagick Studio LLC, a non-profit organization. ImageMagick is available for free, may be used to support both open and proprietary applications, and may be redistributed without fee. This is not compatible with the GPL and this means that any code contributed to ImageMagick and any improvements that could be done in that code cannot be re-used later in the Gimp (maybe in a plug-in, but not in the core). I would not expect that any of the code that is written to support XCF in ImageMagick would make it way back into Gimp (since it's really us trying to support things you already do). HOWEVER, you are welcome to take ANY code from ImageMagick and incorporate it into the Gimp to your heart's content! Leonard
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for > > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library > > (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > > > Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of the > > standard 5.4.1 distribution due on Friday. > > if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I > guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. I'm glad you didn't ask Sven, I think xcf support in imagemagick is really cool. One less thing to worry about when scripting. There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been available at all. Thanks for the work Leonard Rosenthol, -- René ps: and thanks for your's, Sven Neumann, gimp is good. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your > own user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to > support new features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be > able to read those files, your changes would have to be backwards > compat. I don't think the next generation XCF will be backward compatible. Instead we will probably add a plug-in that reads the old files and make it available for older gimp versions. > >(3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats > > ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. > > True, but then you lose information and you have two copies > of the image on your disk. For example, lets say that GIMP user > wants to place an image they are working on in an AbiWord document. > To do that before my changes to ImageMagick, they would have to export > it as PNG and then import that (and hopefully remember to delete the > copy!). Now, since AbiWord supports image importing through > ImageMagick, it can just read the original XCF file! OR what about > all the "web image gallery" software products that use ImageMagick to > produce the thumbnails - now users of GIMP don't have to convert > before running. The idea to use XCF in an AbiWord document makes me shudder. The thumbnail aspect needs to be considered though. We planned to add a preview to the XCF file format and make it easy for other apps to read that preview. It's probably a little late to do that with the current format now. For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly. That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too. > Also, if other applications can't read your file format, it > doesn't help you propagate XCF as a "standard". Of course, maybe > that's not your intent. Since GIMP only runs on GNOME-based Unix > systems today (modulo the older Windows version and the hacks for Mac > OS X), it means that your images aren't usable anywhere else! Posting > them, putting them on CD's, etc. becomes pretty xenophobic. > Applications like ImageMagick that run on other OS's can help XCF > become a viable option for image distribution. I don't think XCF is intended to be a file format for image distribution. It is as much a bad choice for image distribution as Photoshop files are, or Word files for exchanging text documents. It's sole purpose is to save intermediate states of your work and probably exchange it among GIMP users. If there is the need for a multi-layered image format that can serve as a distributable standard file format for images (and I think there is such a need), one should evaluate existing formats or propose a new standard. XCF in its current state is definitely a bad choice. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 01:09 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad > > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because > > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one > > really uses XCF as a file format? > >(1) Because the XCF format may change at any time and will do so > sooner or later. Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your own user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to support new features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be able to read those files, your changes would have to be backwards compat. >(2) Because to mimick the way GIMP projects its layers and channels > you have to implement all layer modes which boils down to copying > or reimplementing a lot of code from The GIMP. This will become > worse as soon as XCF will be extended to handle text and effect > layers. You will end up either rewriting or copying the GIMP core. We have to do a lot of that anyway to support other image formats such as Photoshop, so there isn't anything "GIMP specific" in the areas of layer compositing and such. It's mostly an issue of converting from your internal representations (like tiles) to our "raw bitmaps", your properties to our structures, etc. But yes, GIMP will always do a better job! >(3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats > ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. True, but then you lose information and you have two copies of the image on your disk. For example, lets say that GIMP user wants to place an image they are working on in an AbiWord document. To do that before my changes to ImageMagick, they would have to export it as PNG and then import that (and hopefully remember to delete the copy!). Now, since AbiWord supports image importing through ImageMagick, it can just read the original XCF file! OR what about all the "web image gallery" software products that use ImageMagick to produce the thumbnails - now users of GIMP don't have to convert before running. Also, if other applications can't read your file format, it doesn't help you propagate XCF as a "standard". Of course, maybe that's not your intent. Since GIMP only runs on GNOME-based Unix systems today (modulo the older Windows version and the hacks for Mac OS X), it means that your images aren't usable anywhere else! Posting them, putting them on CD's, etc. becomes pretty xenophobic. Applications like ImageMagick that run on other OS's can help XCF become a viable option for image distribution. >But then, you are free to do whatever you like and I will certainly >not throw stones into your way. Appreciated. But it does sound like you'd also not be interested in my adding XCF writing support to ImageMagick then either??! (which is fine, I have other things to work on ;). Leonard ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: >> if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I >> guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. > > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad idea > and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because GIMP > users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one really > uses XCF as a file format? Here is my opinion (which is probably different from Sven's and probably different from that of other gimp developers or contributors): - XCF is changing. - XCF is designed for internal use by the Gimp while one is editing an image but it is not supposed to be used for the "final" images to be distributed to other people. Other (standard) formats such as PNG or JPEG should be used if one wants to share and image with others. So no one should use XCF as a file exchange format (except among Gimp users, maybe). - This may be controversial, but ImageMagick has a BSD-style license that includes the "advertising clause". This is not compatible with the GPL and this means that any code contributed to ImageMagick and any improvements that could be done in that code cannot be re-used later in the Gimp (maybe in a plug-in, but not in the core). -Raphael ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for > > > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library > > > (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > > > >if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I > >guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. > > OK, I'll bite... > > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one > really uses XCF as a file format? (1) Because the XCF format may change at any time and will do so sooner or later. (2) Because to mimick the way GIMP projects its layers and channels you have to implement all layer modes which boils down to copying or reimplementing a lot of code from The GIMP. This will become worse as soon as XCF will be extended to handle text and effect layers. You will end up either rewriting or copying the GIMP core. (3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. But then, you are free to do whatever you like and I will certainly not throw stones into your way. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for > > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library > > (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > >if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I >guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. OK, I'll bite... Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one really uses XCF as a file format? Leonard ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
Hi, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library > (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of the > standard 5.4.1 distribution due on Friday. if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library (http://www.imagemagick.org). Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of the standard 5.4.1 distribution due on Friday. Leonard Member, ImageMagick Studio ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
