Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
Dana Sibera wrote: On 10/02/2005, at 1:19 AM, Geoffrey wrote: I had no idea that GIMP could select a portion of a pixel. How is it that it can select a % of the pixel? It depends on the way you make the selection in the first place. If you just use the lasso to select areas, then gimp will select only what's inside the area you draw. If you use the Select->Select By Color tool and click on an area of colour, depending on the Threshold value other colours will be partially selected as well. This is useful when you may wish to make a selection that contains most of the sky in a photo, but that sky may contain grades of colour that stretch across anything from white to light blue. Hmmm, I used the 'select contiguous regions.' I guess that it will do the same as you modify the threshold. I find I use it to make subtle colour shifts - say selecting an area by colour and adjusting colour balance slightly in that area. It's not always so good for selecting large areas to be accurately deleted, or to do other really dynamic changes to :). I again appreciate your insights. -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
On 10/02/2005, at 1:19 AM, 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 crawling ants outline view of a selection however, doesn't show anything more than a binary representation - presumably with a cutoff of 50%, meaning you only see the dotted outline around pixels that are more than 50% selected, and those under 50% show as unselected, which includes the areas that are showing up as problems in the shins for example. I had no idea that GIMP could select a portion of a pixel. How is it that it can select a % of the pixel? It depends on the way you make the selection in the first place. If you just use the lasso to select areas, then gimp will select only what's inside the area you draw. If you use the Select->Select By Color tool and click on an area of colour, depending on the Threshold value other colours will be partially selected as well. This is useful when you may wish to make a selection that contains most of the sky in a photo, but that sky may contain grades of colour that stretch across anything from white to light blue. I find I use it to make subtle colour shifts - say selecting an area by colour and adjusting colour balance slightly in that area. It's not always so good for selecting large areas to be accurately deleted, or to do other really dynamic changes to :). dana -- http://www.danamania.com/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
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 crawling ants outline view of a selection however, doesn't show anything more than a binary representation - presumably with a cutoff of 50%, meaning you only see the dotted outline around pixels that are more than 50% selected, and those under 50% show as unselected, which includes the areas that are showing up as problems in the shins for example. I had no idea that GIMP could select a portion of a pixel. How is it that it can select a % of the pixel? The Quick Mask mode gives a full representation of a selection, by overlaying a colour (red by default) in various shades to show a selection. For some example images, http://www.danamania.com/temp/ants.jpg is the normal dotted outline view of a selection, zoomed in around the legs. This shows nothing selected on the legs themselves, as some of those pixels are only partially selected. I appreciate the insights. I finally located the quick mask option and can see for myself the problem areas. A quick jump into Quick Mask mode (with Shift-Q or Select->Toggle Quick Mask) shows all though, and http://www.danamania.com/temp/quickmask.jpg indicates that there are some slightly red pixels on the shins, which represent areas that are only partially selected. Those are the ones that show up in Quick Mask mode, and not in the normal crawling ants view of a selection. When in quick mask mode, you can fix this by 'drawing' a selection using the normal drawing tools such as the paintbrush. Drawing in 'black' will cause an area to become selected(red), and drawing in 'white' will cause an area to become unselected(non-red) - so while in Quick Mask mode, draw over the inside area of the legs with 'white' to unselect those partially selected pixels. You should see the red go away, and it'll look like this: http://www.danamania.com/temp/quickmaskfixed.jpg Thanks again for the insights, I was not aware of this functionality. -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:13:50PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not selected right? Gimp 2.0.4 I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and arms). http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the selection you used. I put it on the site as well. i looked at this. you could see with quickmask that there were some half alpha areas. i am not sure how you made the selections still, but i was able to fairly simply convert the selection to a path and back again (i did some feathering in between my steps) and the problem went away. I don't understand how there could be half alpha areas. Will the selection tool do this? This was originally a jpeg. I'm not familiar with quickmask, I'll have to look into that. I don't have an understanding of paths either, so that will be a bit of research as well. it would be someone elses call whether it is a bug or not. Agreed. I'd like to understand whether it's my failing to understand the tool I'm using or a bug. Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's a problem with GIMP. there are still ways to use the selection -- converting it to a path worked for me. the weird half selected areas were somewhat obvious with quickmask toggled. I'll play with them and see what it does for me. the image demonstrates a problem but it is not enough to determine if it is your technique or a gimp bug. also, before filing a bug report, it might be good to update your gimp to 2.2 and see if the same problem exists there. I know, I've been planning, but it's been busy. I'll download it tonight. :) if they would fix the file selector, it would be darn near perfect; as far as i am concerned. I'm afraid I agree. :) Thanks for the feedback. -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
On 08/02/2005, at 1:13 PM, Geoffrey wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not selected right? Gimp 2.0.4 I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and arms). http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the selection you used. I put it on the site as well. it is recommended that you work at 400% view so that you can see if there are problems like this. I looked at it at even a greater % and still could not see any pixels that were not in the selection. another thing to do is to save the selection as a layer in your xcf so you can fix any pixels problems like this, whether it is a problem with the selection technique or with gimp. Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's a problem with GIMP. 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 crawling ants outline view of a selection however, doesn't show anything more than a binary representation - presumably with a cutoff of 50%, meaning you only see the dotted outline around pixels that are more than 50% selected, and those under 50% show as unselected, which includes the areas that are showing up as problems in the shins for example. The Quick Mask mode gives a full representation of a selection, by overlaying a colour (red by default) in various shades to show a selection. For some example images, http://www.danamania.com/temp/ants.jpg is the normal dotted outline view of a selection, zoomed in around the legs. This shows nothing selected on the legs themselves, as some of those pixels are only partially selected. A quick jump into Quick Mask mode (with Shift-Q or Select->Toggle Quick Mask) shows all though, and http://www.danamania.com/temp/quickmask.jpg indicates that there are some slightly red pixels on the shins, which represent areas that are only partially selected. Those are the ones that show up in Quick Mask mode, and not in the normal crawling ants view of a selection. When in quick mask mode, you can fix this by 'drawing' a selection using the normal drawing tools such as the paintbrush. Drawing in 'black' will cause an area to become selected(red), and drawing in 'white' will cause an area to become unselected(non-red) - so while in Quick Mask mode, draw over the inside area of the legs with 'white' to unselect those partially selected pixels. You should see the red go away, and it'll look like this: http://www.danamania.com/temp/quickmaskfixed.jpg Scroll around the image and look for any more of those partially red (partially selected) pixels - such as on elbows, and draw over those to clear them, hit shift-Q again, and you're back to the crawling ants view, able to delete the background as you did in the first place - but this time witho deleting those partially selected pixels you just fixed :). dana -- http://www.danamania.com/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:13:50PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > Carol Spears wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > > > >>I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove > >>the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole > >>portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is > >>this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? > >> > >>Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not > >>selected right? > >> > >>Gimp 2.0.4 > >> > >>I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. > >>Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and > >>arms). > >> > >>http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ > >> > > > >it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the > >selection you used. > > I put it on the site as well. > i looked at this. you could see with quickmask that there were some half alpha areas. i am not sure how you made the selections still, but i was able to fairly simply convert the selection to a path and back again (i did some feathering in between my steps) and the problem went away. it would be someone elses call whether it is a bug or not. > >it is recommended that you work at 400% view so that you can see if > >there are problems like this. > > I looked at it at even a greater % and still could not see any pixels > that were not in the selection. > > >another thing to do is to save the selection as a layer in your xcf so > >you can fix any pixels problems like this, whether it is a problem with > >the selection technique or with gimp. > > Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's > a problem with GIMP. > there are still ways to use the selection -- converting it to a path worked for me. the weird half selected areas were somewhat obvious with quickmask toggled. > >the image demonstrates a problem but it is not enough to determine if it > >is your technique or a gimp bug. also, before filing a bug report, it > >might be good to update your gimp to 2.2 and see if the same problem > >exists there. > > I know, I've been planning, but it's been busy. I'll download it > tonight. :) > if they would fix the file selector, it would be darn near perfect; as far as i am concerned. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not selected right? Gimp 2.0.4 I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and arms). http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the selection you used. I put it on the site as well. it is recommended that you work at 400% view so that you can see if there are problems like this. I looked at it at even a greater % and still could not see any pixels that were not in the selection. another thing to do is to save the selection as a layer in your xcf so you can fix any pixels problems like this, whether it is a problem with the selection technique or with gimp. Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's a problem with GIMP. the image demonstrates a problem but it is not enough to determine if it is your technique or a gimp bug. also, before filing a bug report, it might be good to update your gimp to 2.2 and see if the same problem exists there. I know, I've been planning, but it's been busy. I'll download it tonight. :) -- Until later, Geoffrey ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] missing pixels
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove > the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole > portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is > this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? > > Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not > selected right? > > Gimp 2.0.4 > > I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. > Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and > arms). > > http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ > it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the selection you used. it is recommended that you work at 400% view so that you can see if there are problems like this. another thing to do is to save the selection as a layer in your xcf so you can fix any pixels problems like this, whether it is a problem with the selection technique or with gimp. the image demonstrates a problem but it is not enough to determine if it is your technique or a gimp bug. also, before filing a bug report, it might be good to update your gimp to 2.2 and see if the same problem exists there. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
