Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Bodo Eggert]

> -Original Message- 
> From: Jehan Pag?s

> Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this
> is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others
> wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you
> pass your work to someone with another version?

The first person will e.g. scan and work in 16 bit, do the color 
corrections and pass on these images after converting it to 8 bit. The 
rest of the work is done with 8 bits. Obviously there will be some loss, 
but that's life.

(I had to use Debian oldstable for some time because the new kernel didn't 
 work with my mainboard. So I would be the one with the old version.)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Derek Mortimer]

I should like to apologise for not communicating sufficiently clearly.  To 
clarify, may I please respond to the four (I think!) misunderstanding of my 
comments shown below.  For clarity and ease of reference, relevant extracts 
from the various comments are shown below.

1) Of course Messrs. Natterer and Pagès are right that, when people are working 
on the same document/file/picture, the saving of their work has to be 
compatible between the group.  However, unless this is done by a commercial 
organisation providing the same machines with the same versions of all the 
software on those machines to all the participants in the group, there are 
likely to be all sorts of variants.  This is likely to particularly so where 
the group participants are independents, with differing machines on different 
operating systems where the only unifying characteristic is working on the same 
document/file/picture using the same application.

In the latter circumstance, there are likely to be different versions of GIMP 
in use.  In this instance, Mr. Simončič wrote:
"I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export option that 
writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing data in the 
process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save)."

As an illustration, I wrote "Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of 
that package is that it will open and save as the same nearly all document 
formats, both old and new. When one has document files 18 years old, this is a 
major benefit, giving continuity to one's work."

To clarify, and this is only using LibreOffice since April, 2013, the suite 
allows one not only to open files in both old and diverse formats but also to 
save them in the same old formats.  If there is loss of information in saving 
in the old format, LibreOffice warns you of this and the user has to make a 
positive decision to carry on using the old format, but is allowed to do so by 
the application.

To echo Mr. Simončič's point, adding this ability to save in older GIMP formats 
could be very useful where, as outlined above, for perfectly valid reasons, 
different members of the same group have differing versions of GIMP.

2) Regarding Mr. Pagès' response, hopefully I have explained above why my 
comments are not off-topic.

3) Regarding Mr. Peck's comments about OpenOffice, I can't comment.  When I 
looked at open source Office software, I deliberately chose LibreOffice because 
that had remained open source.  By the same token, I rejected OpenOffice 
because Oracle had tried to make it proprietary, as a result of which the 
programmers left and set up LibreOffice.  My comments about using LibreOffice 
can be verified by anyone downloading it and using it.

4) I found Mr. Prokoudine's comment disappointing.  Not being in a court of law 
or a policeman, I have not "accused" anyone of anything.  I merely asked a 
question, offering people a chance to reflect a moment.  Further, as I have 
tried to explain above, I have paid attention to Mr. Simončič's point, which I 
was trying to reinforce.  Clearly I didn't explain it properly, for which I 
have already apologised above.

HTH

-Original Message- 
From: Derek Mortimer 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:58 PM 
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org 
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT) 

Perhaps I may add a perspective, please.

Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will 
open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. 
When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving 
continuity to one's work.

Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes 
obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell 
users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version 
of GIMP?

After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). 
If they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just 
because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time, 
which is now out of date?

HTH

-Original Message- 
From: Jehan Pagès
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:58 PM
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck <akk...@shallowsky.com> wrote:
> Michael Natterer writes:
>> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
>> > I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export
>> > option
>> > that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing
>> > data
>> > in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).
>>
>> I keep wondering why we would want that at all.
>>
>> - as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,
>>   it's not like one

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Akkana Peck]

Michael Natterer writes:
> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> > I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export
> > option
> > that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing
> > data
> > in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).
> 
> I keep wondering why we would want that at all.
> 
> - as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,
>   it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick
>   with 2.8 because it's not affordable
> 
> So why bother with compat saving at all?

No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people,
at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the
libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take
six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can
run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases)
may wait a lot longer than that.

...Akkana
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Michael Natterer]

On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 22:53:05 +0100, Jehan Pagès wrote:
> 
> > Now wanting to sound sarcastic, but have you read my email? There
> > is
> > such an option and I told about it in the email you answer to.
> > Quoting myself:
> 
> I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export
> option
> that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing
> data
> in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).

I keep wondering why we would want that at all.

- as long as we have 2.9, it's unstable and it's their own
  fault if people use it

- as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,
  it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick
  with 2.8 because it's not affordable

So why bother with compat saving at all?

--Mitch

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Jehan Pagès]

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck  wrote:
> Michael Natterer writes:
>> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
>> > I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export
>> > option
>> > that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing
>> > data
>> > in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).
>>
>> I keep wondering why we would want that at all.
>>
>> - as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,
>>   it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick
>>   with 2.8 because it's not affordable
>>
>> So why bother with compat saving at all?
>
> No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people,
> at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the
> libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take
> six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can
> run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases)
> may wait a lot longer than that.

Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this
is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others
wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you
pass your work to someone with another version?

For instance if you were using high bit depth, then if you "save"
without high bith depth in order to have a 2.8-compatible XCF, the
person you shared with simply has a different image. Then if this
persons edits this image, and sends it back to you, then what? You now
have a 8-bit version. If that is not a problem, why bother from the
start with high bit depth? Oppositely if high bit depth is too
important to you for even considering losing it, there is simply no
other solution: everyone must have a recent version of GIMP able to
process high bit depth.

I took this feature as an example, but that is also true for any other
feature which would require an update in the XCF format.

Jehan

P.S.: maybe we could have an extension standard within XCF which could
allow older versions to load newer XCF files using unknown feature and
displaying warnings but still loading a "partly broken" file. This
could be an interesting update, why not. But right now, this does not
exist. And it would not be possible for every kind of feature (once
again, the high bit depth changes the image data in too much a deep
way to make this easy).

P.P.S.: this said, I agree with Mitch that there are very few (good)
reasons to keep an old version of GIMP. And I don't think we should
encourage this. As for the package management systems which are indeed
slow to update on many Linux distributions, I have good hope towards
the xdg-app project which would make such a worry a thing of the past.


> ...Akkana
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Derek Mortimer]

Perhaps I may add a perspective, please.

Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will 
open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. 
When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving 
continuity to one's work.


Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes 
obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell 
users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version 
of GIMP?


After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). 
If they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just 
because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time, 
which is now out of date?


HTH

-Original Message- 
From: Jehan Pagès

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:58 PM
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck <akk...@shallowsky.com> wrote:

Michael Natterer writes:

On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export
> option
> that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing
> data
> in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).

I keep wondering why we would want that at all.

- as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,
  it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick
  with 2.8 because it's not affordable

So why bother with compat saving at all?


No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people,
at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the
libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take
six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can
run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases)
may wait a lot longer than that.


Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this
is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others
wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you
pass your work to someone with another version?

For instance if you were using high bit depth, then if you "save"
without high bith depth in order to have a 2.8-compatible XCF, the
person you shared with simply has a different image. Then if this
persons edits this image, and sends it back to you, then what? You now
have a 8-bit version. If that is not a problem, why bother from the
start with high bit depth? Oppositely if high bit depth is too
important to you for even considering losing it, there is simply no
other solution: everyone must have a recent version of GIMP able to
process high bit depth.

I took this feature as an example, but that is also true for any other
feature which would require an update in the XCF format.

Jehan

P.S.: maybe we could have an extension standard within XCF which could
allow older versions to load newer XCF files using unknown feature and
displaying warnings but still loading a "partly broken" file. This
could be an interesting update, why not. But right now, this does not
exist. And it would not be possible for every kind of feature (once
again, the high bit depth changes the image data in too much a deep
way to make this easy).

P.P.S.: this said, I agree with Mitch that there are very few (good)
reasons to keep an old version of GIMP. And I don't think we should
encourage this. As for the package management systems which are indeed
slow to update on many Linux distributions, I have good hope towards
the xdg-app project which would make such a worry a thing of the past.



...Akkana
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list 


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Derek Mortimer wrote:

> Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes
> obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell
> users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version
> of GIMP?

We are not even discussing opening older files in newer version sof
GIMP. We are talking about completely opposite thing: opening newer
GIMP files in ol versions of GIMP.

Please do pay attention before you accuse people of anything.

Alex
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Jehan Pagès]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Derek Mortimer <m...@aaa.co.uk> wrote:
> Perhaps I may add a perspective, please.
>
> Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will
> open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new.
> When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving
> continuity to one's work.
>
> Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes
> obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell
> users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version
> of GIMP?
>
> After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). If
> they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just
> because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time,
> which is now out of date?

I'm sorry, but this is completely off-topic. Of course old works are
perfectly opened with newer versions of GIMP and this will stay so.
Why would we break older files?
If you find examples otherwise, then this is a bug, and we would
welcome bug reports for us to fix the issue.

So to make sure things are clear: we are talking about files made with
newer GIMP using new features which cannot be opened with older GIMP
(since older GIMP did not have these features).

Jehan

> HTH
>
> -Original Message- From: Jehan Pagès
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:58 PM
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck <akk...@shallowsky.com> wrote:
>>
>> Michael Natterer writes:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
>>> > I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export
>>> > option
>>> > that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing
>>> > data
>>> > in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).
>>>
>>> I keep wondering why we would want that at all.
>>>
>>> - as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,
>>>   it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick
>>>   with 2.8 because it's not affordable
>>>
>>> So why bother with compat saving at all?
>>
>>
>> No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people,
>> at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the
>> libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take
>> six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can
>> run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases)
>> may wait a lot longer than that.
>
>
> Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this
> is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others
> wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you
> pass your work to someone with another version?
>
> For instance if you were using high bit depth, then if you "save"
> without high bith depth in order to have a 2.8-compatible XCF, the
> person you shared with simply has a different image. Then if this
> persons edits this image, and sends it back to you, then what? You now
> have a 8-bit version. If that is not a problem, why bother from the
> start with high bit depth? Oppositely if high bit depth is too
> important to you for even considering losing it, there is simply no
> other solution: everyone must have a recent version of GIMP able to
> process high bit depth.
>
> I took this feature as an example, but that is also true for any other
> feature which would require an update in the XCF format.
>
> Jehan
>
> P.S.: maybe we could have an extension standard within XCF which could
> allow older versions to load newer XCF files using unknown feature and
> displaying warnings but still loading a "partly broken" file. This
> could be an interesting update, why not. But right now, this does not
> exist. And it would not be possible for every kind of feature (once
> again, the high bit depth changes the image data in too much a deep
> way to make this easy).
>
> P.P.S.: this said, I agree with Mitch that there are very few (good)
> reasons to keep an old version of GIMP. And I don't think we should
> encourage this. As for the package management systems which are indeed
> slow to update on many Linux distributions, I have good hope towards
> the xdg-app project which would make such a worry a thing of the past.
>
>
>> ...Akkana
>> ___
>> gimp-user-list 

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Akkana Peck]

Alexandre Prokoudine writes:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Derek Mortimer wrote:
> 
> > Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes
> > obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell
> > users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version
> > of GIMP?
> 
> We are not even discussing opening older files in newer version sof
> GIMP. We are talking about completely opposite thing: opening newer
> GIMP files in ol versions of GIMP.

Also, I had the exact same problem with OpenOffice, years ago, that
we're talking about with GIMP: newer versions of OO would save .odt
that older OO versions couldn't read. I can only assume that's still
true of LibreOffice since I don't see any compatibility options for
older ODT in the Save As menu.

...Akkana
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Jernej Simončič]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:42:24 +0100, Jehan Pagès wrote:

> Maybe a good feature could be to have a small text listing exactly the
> reason(s) why an image cannot be saved in compatibility mode (overlay
> layer, high bit depth, metadata or a mix of 2 or 3 of these features.
> The new compression is the only feature which is bypassable and does
> not block compatibility mode).

How about having an option to Export to the old format version?

-- 
begin  .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej|s-ng at eternallybored.org >
end

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Jehan Pagès]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Jernej Simončič
 wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:42:24 +0100, Jehan Pagès wrote:
>
>> Maybe a good feature could be to have a small text listing exactly the
>> reason(s) why an image cannot be saved in compatibility mode (overlay
>> layer, high bit depth, metadata or a mix of 2 or 3 of these features.
>> The new compression is the only feature which is bypassable and does
>> not block compatibility mode).
>
> How about having an option to Export to the old format version?

Now wanting to sound sarcastic, but have you read my email? There is
such an option and I told about it in the email you answer to.
Quoting myself:

> This is why you have a case "Save this XCF file with
maximum compatibility" in the save dialog. When you check it, it will
save a XCF with the older compression, which can be opened with GIMP
2.8, probably even GIMP 2.6 or older!

But there are some features which are intrinsically impossible to make
compatible. In particular, high bit depth or new layer modes. Being
"compatible" just means not using the features (and making the file
compatible during save only means "losing data and even getting a
different render").
Just as there were some features which made some XCF files from GIMP
2.8 incompatible with 2.6 (in particular: using layer groups made your
XCF file non openable in 2.6), there are new features in 2.10 which
will do the same for 2.8.

Now for the particular issue of metadata, I realized after my email
yesterday that they are saved in a way which can make a XCF with
metadata still compatible in GIMP 2.8 without losing the metadata on
saving (simply they cannot be viewed nor edited in 2.8, but they will
still be passed along and viewable/editable when the file is reopened
in 2.10). So I made a patch for this on our bug tracker, waiting for
Mitch review.

I believe this was the most annoying issue here (at least reading Akkana email).

Jehan
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Jernej Simončič]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 22:53:05 +0100, Jehan Pagès wrote:

> Now wanting to sound sarcastic, but have you read my email? There is
> such an option and I told about it in the email you answer to.
> Quoting myself:

I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export option
that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing data
in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).

-- 
begin  .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej|s-ng at eternallybored.org >
end

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Jehan Pagès]

Hi,

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Akkana Peck  wrote:
>> scott092707 (for...@gimpusers.com) wrote:
>> > Will this always happen, if I try to open a file saved in an 
>> > earlier-vintage
>> > GIMP?
>
> Simon Budig writes:
>> No, this will not always happen, just when you use features that are not
>> available in the older gimp version - e.g. high precision pixel formats.
>
> If I load a JPEG into git master built a few days ago, make no
> changes and immediately save as XCF, then exit and try to open
> that XCF in GIMP 2.8, it fails:
>   "Opening '/tmp/can7795-scale.xcf' failed: XCF error:
>   unsupported XCF file version 8 encountered"

We have a new zlib compression, which is much more efficient than the
previous RLE compression (like 2 or 3 times smaller files). Yet we are
aware that for some people, retro-compatibility is more important than
small files. This is why you have a case "Save this XCF file with
maximum compatibility" in the save dialog. When you check it, it will
save a XCF with the older compression, which can be opened with GIMP
2.8, probably even GIMP 2.6 or older!

BUT jpeg images have metadata, and as you know, GIMP 2.9 has new
metadata support. This by itself is a new feature which was not
supported on older GIMP. So when you create a XCF from a JPEG made by
a camera, the checkbox "Save this XCF file with maximum compatibility"
will be grayed-out because anyway, this is not possible to make the
file 2.8-compatible if you want metadata support.

Same if you create high precision images.

Same if you use the new overlay mode on layers.

> It would be great if the files were incompatible only if you use
> new features that the old XCF doesn't support, as Simon says; but
> so far, it seems XCFs saved by 2.9 are never compatible with 2.8.

As explained above, no it is exactly as Simon says. If you create an
image from scratch (as a painter or designer for instance), in 8-bit
and without overlay layers, you will always have the possibility to
check the "compatibility" box if retro-compatibility is very important
to you.

But images from photos made by camera (hence with a lot of metadata), nope.

Now, it would be cool if you could get rid of the metadata, for people
who don't care about them and prefer retro-compatibility.
Unfortunately we don't have metadata editing (hence erasing) support
yet. Only reading and saving. We welcome developers interested by the
topic and who want to contribute. I believe metadata editing is a
much-needed and wanted features by many people. :-)

But for now, until some people comes up and implement this, we can't
have the cake and eat it: new features in the XCF format means higher
format version. There is no escaping it.

Maybe a good feature could be to have a small text listing exactly the
reason(s) why an image cannot be saved in compatibility mode (overlay
layer, high bit depth, metadata or a mix of 2 or 3 of these features.
The new compression is the only feature which is bypassable and does
not block compatibility mode).

Jehan

> I've wished many times for a way to save "old XCF" format. I've been
> using 2.9 for most of my GIMPing, but there are a few images I'd
> like to be able to share with other people or edit on machines that
> don't have the libraries needed for 2.9. I try to remember to edit
> those images only with 2.8, but I forget, and once they've been
> saved with 2.9 even once they're forever out of reach of 2.8.
>
> ...Akkana
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Gez]

El sáb, 05-12-2015 a las 13:00 -0500, Steve Kinney escribió:
> On 12/05/2015 11:36 AM, Ofnuts wrote:
> 
> > > > Wouldn't it be useful to have a different file extension for
> > > > the new
> > > > high-precision contents?
> 
Speaking strictly from a user perspective, it always sucks when you try
to open a file and the program fails to open complaining that it was
created with a newer version. It's awful UX.
Personally, I would prefer that the program warns me that the file was
created with a newer version and some features can be missing and open
at least something.

As GIMP is going to take some time to be released, it's probably a
better idea to try to keep some two way compatibility for the people
who's going to use 2.9 as part of their production pipelines.
I know that 2.9.x is a development version and it's not ready yet, but
since it has some really attractive features, some people will use it
as a complement for GIMP 2.8.x
I'm one of those users. I use GIMP stable mainly for my work, but high
bit depth editing is attractive since it allows me to do some things
that aren't possible with 8 bpc sRGB. Once GIMP 2.10 is out I will
definitely use it, but for now, I'm going to use it only for some
tasks, as a complement for the stable version.
The XCF version incompatibility is certainly a hurdle.

Gez.
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Ofnuts]

On 05/12/15 13:17, Simon Budig wrote:

scott092707 (for...@gimpusers.com) wrote:

2.8.14 told me that "Opening '/data/scott/Desktop/100_0642&5.xcf' failed: XCF
error: unsupported XCF file version 8 encountered" (see screenshot).

Will this always happen, if I try to open a file saved in an earlier-vintage
GIMP?

No, this will not always happen, just when you use features that are not
available in the older gimp version - e.g. high precision pixel formats.

Wouldn't it be useful to have a different file extension for the new 
high-precision contents?

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Ofnuts wrote:

>> No, this will not always happen, just when you use features that are not
>> available in the older gimp version - e.g. high precision pixel formats.
>>
> Wouldn't it be useful to have a different file extension for the new
> high-precision contents?

What's the benefit? Should file extension be changed every time some
major change happpens? How many different file extensions for GIMP
would you be comfortable with?

Alex
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Steve Kinney]

On 12/05/2015 11:36 AM, Ofnuts wrote:

>>> Wouldn't it be useful to have a different file extension for the new
>>> high-precision contents?

>> What's the benefit?
> 
> Not endlessly explaining to users that there are two different types
> of XCF.  [ ... ]

>> Should file extension be changed every time some
>> major change happpens? How many different file extensions for GIMP
>> would you be comfortable with?

> One per incompatible change (ie, version N cannot load version N+1).

Maybe a notice that works like the "tip of the day" in versions of
the GIMP that make xcf files that earlier versions can't handle?  It
could even be the first item in the tip of the day rotation...

Explicitly advising users in advance that their shiny new GIMP
installation makes files earlier versions can't open would be Good
Thing.  A similar notice might be displayed on the gimp.org download
page.  This might help many users who do collaborative work to avoid
potentially costly (lost time, missed deadlines) issues.

:o)



___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Akkana Peck]

> scott092707 (for...@gimpusers.com) wrote:
> > Will this always happen, if I try to open a file saved in an earlier-vintage
> > GIMP?

Simon Budig writes:
> No, this will not always happen, just when you use features that are not
> available in the older gimp version - e.g. high precision pixel formats.

If I load a JPEG into git master built a few days ago, make no
changes and immediately save as XCF, then exit and try to open
that XCF in GIMP 2.8, it fails:
  "Opening '/tmp/can7795-scale.xcf' failed: XCF error:
  unsupported XCF file version 8 encountered"

It would be great if the files were incompatible only if you use
new features that the old XCF doesn't support, as Simon says; but
so far, it seems XCFs saved by 2.9 are never compatible with 2.8.

I've wished many times for a way to save "old XCF" format. I've been
using 2.9 for most of my GIMPing, but there are a few images I'd
like to be able to share with other people or edit on machines that
don't have the libraries needed for 2.9. I try to remember to edit
those images only with 2.8, but I forget, and once they've been
saved with 2.9 even once they're forever out of reach of 2.8.

...Akkana
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[Simon Budig]

scott092707 (for...@gimpusers.com) wrote:
> 2.8.14 told me that "Opening '/data/scott/Desktop/100_0642&5.xcf' failed: XCF
> error: unsupported XCF file version 8 encountered" (see screenshot).
> 
> Will this always happen, if I try to open a file saved in an earlier-vintage
> GIMP?

No, this will not always happen, just when you use features that are not
available in the older gimp version - e.g. high precision pixel formats.

I hope this helps,
Simon

-- 
  si...@budig.de  http://simon.budig.de/
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[scott092707]

I normally use 2.8.14 (from Lubuntu 15.10), but to have access to new/better
features when needed, I also have 2.9.3 installed (Windows, installed in WINE,
from http://nightly.darkrefraction.com/gimp/).
Yesterday, I edited a file in 2.9.3 to use the better ForegroundSelect, and
saved it (also exported to .jpg). Today, I realized I never did Levels on the
image, and tried to bring it up in 2.8.14 (As I am not aware of any
new/wonderful changes in the 2.9.x Levels tool).
2.8.14 told me that "Opening '/data/scott/Desktop/100_0642&5.xcf' failed: XCF
error: unsupported XCF file version 8 encountered" (see screenshot).

Will this always happen, if I try to open a file saved in an earlier-vintage
GIMP?
Is there some way around it?
Obviously, I can always bring up the .jpg file instead (with a (probably small)
loss of quality),
but is this expected behaviour, or is it a bug?

-Scott

Attachments:
* 
http://www.gimpusers.com/system/attachments/229/original/GIMP_Message_Screenshot.png

-- 
scott092707 (via www.gimpusers.com/forums)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

[scott092707]

>Will this always happen, if I try to open a file saved in an
>earlier-vintage GIMP?

Sorry - "... open a file saved in a LATER-vintage GIMP ..."

-- 
scott092707 (via www.gimpusers.com/forums)
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list