Hi,
"Nonexistent Entity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Different actually, most often random: 0 or randomize, randomization:100%
> repeat:1 (sometimes more repeats).
> I don't really understand its options but I like the effect.
> And it seems to be faster than others.
> Maybe it does t
"Sven Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Would you mind to tell us what parameters you are using the plug-in
>with?
Different actually, most often random: 0 or randomize, randomization:100%
repeat:1 (sometimes more repeats).
I don't really understand its options but I like the effect.
And
Hi,
"Nonexistent Entity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I use this plug-in, it can give different results than other blur
> plug-ins, and these results sometimes seem to fit more than RLE and
> IIR.
Would you mind to tell us what parameters you are using the plug-in
with?
Sven
_
I use this plug-in, it can give different results than other blur
plug-ins,
and these results sometimes seem to fit more than RLE and IIR.
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Hi,
Alexander Rabtchevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not to simply add new plugin with 3x3 convolution and call it
> Blur? And leave old one with new name "Random blur".
Because we are trying to simplify our menus. Suggesting to add yet
another entry to the Blur menu is counter-productive
Why not to simply add new plugin with 3x3 convolution and call it Blur?
And leave old one with new name "Random blur".
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to get some feedback on the following plan for the Blur
plug-in
(details are in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142318):
The plan is to
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
I'd like to get some feedback on the following plan for the Blur
plug-in
(details are in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142318):
The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That
would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog.
Sounds O
