I have spent some time investigating how to put a checkbox on the brush property window, and found that it currently only supports sliders for numeric values, which are inapropriate for the solution I think is best (see my previous post for more info).
As such, I have decided to go with David Gowers' solution for now, which seemed simple enough and effective. I have found a lot more difficulties than I thought I would though. Passing new values around the draw functions isn't trivial, and a lot of value-copying is happening. I think this should be rethought and maybe passing a struct reference/pointer would be better. I have however succeeded in doing this. I have rebased my repo to a recent mypaint revision, and applied a new patch that checks for the brush's AA value and enables/disables the AA codepath plus pixel-snapping. This enables the ability to have gapless, pixel-sharp brushes. Please test: https://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Micael <[email protected]> wrote: > The current AA slider should be renamed to something more appropriate, > like "feather" for example. > Enabling/Disabling the new AA algorithm should be a checkbox, and when > disabled the x/y coords of the dabs should be snapped to pixel centers (eg: > "x = floor(x)+0.5"). This would allow for pixel-sharp dabs and it would > perform better than before since it'd also take care of the gappy strokes. > > I would do this myself, but I just don't have enough time to investigate > how exactly one creates a new widget in the brush settings and pass it's > value to the C brushlib up to the "render_dab_mask" function in the most > appropriate way. > > This is just my opinion on how things should be. > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:02 AM, David Gowers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have tried your code and I find that it's a great improvement in terms >> of consistent thickness for thin lines, whether those lines are hard or >> soft edged; it's much more fun and predictable. I actually prefer it for >> pixeling, because those 2-pixel-wide dabs constitute a majority of the work >> on a pixel piece. The only lack is the inability to paint at a 1px detail >> level (again, not only for hard edged brushes; your patches effectively >> 'thicken' all <2px brushes to approximately 2px). >> >> IMO the logical way to turn off AA is by checking whether the brush >> 'antialiasing' value is < 0.001. I haven't spotted a fast way to do that >> yet. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Micael <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> @Martin: The final deltas calculate the difference between the "rr" >>> value at the farthest and nearest positions inside the pixel to get an idea >>> of how much should we fade out the pixel. Since this value can be <1 (but >>> never <0 since rr_far is always >= rr_near), we make it so that it will >>> always be >=1, so that the final division will always fade out the pixel, >>> instead of fade it in (dividing by >=0 <1). This also makes sure that a >>> division by zero will never occur. >>> >>> @David: antialising is all about removing hard edges, and since >>> currently the patch doesn't offer an option to disable the AA codepath, >>> it's currently impossible to guarantee "pixel-snapped" edges. At most you >>> can guarantee that a dab with diameter of <=1.0 will never occupy more than >>> 4 pixels (if painting near a pixel's "vertex"). >>> >>> The experimental/1pixel definitely needs a snap-to-pixel-no-aa option so >>> that the brush will always paint at a pixel's center, and not go through >>> the AA codepath. >>> >>> The AA-attempt code also needs to be fixed to not allow <=0 radius dabs. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM, David Gowers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >for example "experimental/1pixel" is now >>>> >broader than 1 pixel. (Not our most important brush.) >>>> >>>> That seems ok as long as it's possible for me to fix it to actually be >>>> 1pixel again; or at least that proper hard-edged dab rendering is still >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> I'll check out if that is the case ASAP. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Martin Renold <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi Micael >>>>> hi David >>>>> >>>>> I think your patch is good now. But it affects existing brushes. >>>>> >>>>> David (or anyone else working on brushes): could you please test your >>>>> brushes with this branch? >>>>> >>>>> https://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint/commits/master >>>>> git clone git://gitorious.org/~mdias/mypaint/mdiass-mypaint.git >>>>> >>>>> I would like to know if it's okay to use this for 1.1, or if we better >>>>> do it >>>>> after the release, to give more time to check and re-tune brushes. >>>>> Most >>>>> brushes profit from this change I think, especially dynamic ink >>>>> brushes. >>>>> >>>>> Some are definitively changed, for example "experimental/1pixel" is now >>>>> broader than 1 pixel. (Not our most important brush.) >>>>> >>>>> Some small sharp ink brushes may look a bit blurred now. I have >>>>> noticed this >>>>> with "deevad/soft_dip_pen" from set #2. Maybe they can be retuned. >>>>> The >>>>> settings "hardness", "anti-aliasing" and "opacity" are good candidates. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Martin Renold >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Mypaint-discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Micael Dias >>> >> >> > > > -- > Micael Dias > -- Micael Dias
_______________________________________________ Mypaint-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/mypaint-discuss
