> Maybe best would be to have a magic entry in the gradient editor
> "FG->BG" and "BG->FG" which would change accordingly, and remove the
> selection from the gradient tool.
>
> jtl
Make that the gradient selector rather than the editor, and I'll agree with you
completely :)
Seth
Hi,
>
> Well, thus far we've had very little trouble supporting 1.0. Even the
> configure script works properly. 1.0 is still the stable release of
> the Gimp.
>
I really don't understand your development cycle. We are approaching the
1.2 release but you insist on keeping the code that is g
Blue Lang wrote:
> did someone take that out of cvs?
Yes. From ChangeLog:
>> Wed Feb 16 14:46:14 CET 2000 Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> * app/pathsP.h: removed
>> * app/path.h
>> * app/pathP.h
>> * app/path_transform.h: new header files. Only files that absolutely
>> need to acce
It's a little confusing to me sometimes to use the gradient tool, thinking
the gradient at the bottom of the toolbar will be used, and finding out that
it's actually using the FG-BG colors (or vice versa). I do know how to
change it, but sometimes I forget which is in effect.
It would be nice if
Zach Beane - MINT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a little confusing to me sometimes to use the gradient tool, thinking
> the gradient at the bottom of the toolbar will be used, and finding out that
> it's actually using the FG-BG colors (or vice versa). I do know how to
> change it, but somet
> It's a little confusing to me sometimes to use the gradient tool, thinking
> the gradient at the bottom of the toolbar will be used, and finding out that
> it's actually using the FG-BG colors (or vice versa). I do know how to
> change it, but sometimes I forget which is in effect.
>
> It would
On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:04:05PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
[snip]
>
> Come on guys. This idea is not new and the only reason it's not yet
> implemented is the feature freeze. Read the list we created last August
> at the Chaos Communication Camp...
What's the URL? I looked at http://sven.gi
I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
resolution back that's expressed in dots per inch. Is this behavior
correct? If so, did it work this way in 1.0 also? This is so I can
investigate its use wit
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
>
> I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
> 1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
> resolution back that's expressed in dots per inch. Is this behavior
> correct?
Absolutely correct.
> If so, did it work this
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:43:41 +0100
From: Michael Natterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
>
> I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
> 1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
>
Hi,
> I'm experimenting with gimp_image_get_resolution(). It appears (in
> 1.1.17, at any rate) that whatever I set the units to I always get a
> resolution back that's expressed in dots per inch. Is this behavior
> correct? If so, did it work this way in 1.0 also? This is so I can
> investig
Hi,
> While scripts are in the air, should we remove mkbrush.scm before 1.2?
>
> This script takes a bunch of parameters and makes a new brush, almost
> exactly like the "New" or "Edit" features of the brush dialog, but
> it's a Script-Fu. Do we need it for anything? Otherwise we should
> remove
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:50:05 +0100
> Doing it correctly won't be entirely trivial, since the print plugin
> currently assumes xres == yres, but I want to start investigating it.
> Whatever happens, it won't get back ported to 3.0.
I don
Hi,
I want to load a image using gimp. this image size is 2048 times
1420 pixels. The value of each pixel is a 8 bit number.
Is it possible to load thsi image using a script. I am very new to
Gimp.
If possibel please give some suggestion.
Bye,
Nilay.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 04:06:19PM -0800, Nilay saha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is it possible to load thsi image using a script.
Yes. It is non-trivial. If you have ImageMagick installed, however, you can
eaasily convert that image using a call like:
convert -size 2000x1500 gray:inputfile.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 04:06:19PM -0800, Nilay saha wrote:
> I want to load a image using gimp. this image size is 2048 times
> 1420 pixels. The value of each pixel is a 8 bit number.
>Is it possible to load thsi image using a script.
There is a RAW plug-in avaialable which does this thin
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:35:17 +0100
> Well, thus far we've had very little trouble supporting 1.0. Even the
> configure script works properly. 1.0 is still the stable release of
> the Gimp.
I really don't under
Hi,
> Mind, based on my own DTP experience, I'm not entirely convinced that
> this is all that useful, anyway. When I did newsletters, I had to fit
> photos and other graphics to the page; nominal image size meant very
> little beyond being careful not to enlarge things too much. The 3.1
> plug
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:18:53 +0100
Don't underestimate the importance of the resolution info for the print
plugin. The following task may not be very professional, but it is
certainly something the average gimp user does frequently:
Sc
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 03:18:53 +0100
Don't underestimate the importance of the resolution info for the print
plugin. The following task may not be very professional, but it is
certainly something the average gimp user does frequently:
Sc
[This should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but this complained about
a missing Package-header. Can't the tracking System handle Mime-Mails?]
Package: gimp
Version: CVS from 19.2.2000
2 Python scripts fail to start with a nonstandard python installation
since the path to /usr/bin/python is hardcode
Hi,
> * How to change RGBA image to an RGB image ?, because it's not
> intuitive enough. New option in "Remove Alpha" menu would be
> more helpful than explaining this and that.
Removing Alha from a multilayered image is not possible since
gimp insists on having alpha on each layer but the back
On Fre, 18 Feb 2000 wrote the famous Steinar H. Gunderson:
>On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 11:15:52AM -0600, Miles O'Neal wrote:
>>Group replies will go to the list.
>
>Not to mention that, if you're using mutt (or possibly any other
>decent mailer), it's trivial to set it up so you can reply to the
>_li
> This more or less works now...
>
> > * Still no transparent text (it can't be that hard)
> > Although it's tricky to get transparent text, but it is possible
> > and one must invent it
>
> ?? Sorry, I don't you here.
I believe he's going for a "only create selection" option for text.
There'
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 10:55:04PM +0100, Jarda Benkovsky wrote:
> Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
> > The icons are imho very good, try making better ones and you understand
> > why. Of course they arent PuRdy CuTe, but that is not the point. Most
> > graphics tools dont have too colorful icons, excludin
Tuomas Kuosmanen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 10:55:04PM +0100, Jarda Benkovsky wrote:
> > IMHO the problem is that the new ones (from dodge/burn on) are
> > somewhat inconsistent in drawing style - I would personally like
> > them to have more gray, so they are visible wit
> BTW: Has something changed in the handling of the icons/toolbox buttons?
> If I move the mouse over a button (current CVS) just a rectangular frame
> around the image gets highlighted. Did the transparency of the imaged
> disappear?
Eeek, my fault. I somehow forgot about the importance of the m
27 matches
Mail list logo
