William Skaggs wrote:
For people who would be interesting in learning a bit more about
this topic, it might be worth taking a look at the related help
docs,
http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch02s04s04.html
and
http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch04s03s05.html
Thanks for the links.
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Olivier Ripoll wrote:
Well, think as a human being (not a coder, nor an artist). What do you
call transparent in life ? The windows of your house or office, be they
perfectly clean, dirty or tainted are transparent. You feel
intuitively that transparency is not a binary property, it is a
Geoffrey wrote:
Dana Sibera wrote:
It's a problem, but not so much a bug as a limitation of the 'crawling
ants' view that shows a selection. Pixels aren't just 'selected' or
'not selected' in that image, there are some pixels which are 10%
selected, 20, 50, 80, 100% selected, and so on. The
Olivier Ripoll wrote:
You misunderstood. A portion of the value (RGBA) of the pixel is
selected, not a portion of the pixel geometry. Think of it like a
phantom (ghost, whatever you call it): The shape of the human body is
totally preserved, but you can see through it.
Still, I didn't know you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Geoffrey
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:02 AM
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Re: missing pixels
Olivier Ripoll wrote:
You misunderstood. A portion
For people who would be interesting in learning a bit more about
this topic, it might be worth taking a look at the related help
docs,
http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch02s04s04.html
and
http://docs.gimp.org/en/ch04s03s05.html
Best,
-- Bill
__ __ __
