Re: [Gimp-user] Scaling in Gimp 2.6 is much slower than in Gimp 2.4
Hi, On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 04:01 -0700, Claus Berghammer wrote: > Since there is no explanation WHY the algorithm was rewritten, I guess 2 > possible reasons: > > 1.)The old code did something wrong in some cases > 2.)The new code was necessary due to GEGL integration > > For the first point, I compared scaling results from 2.4 and 2.6, and they > are (ignoring some harmless alignment issues) 100% identical (using > difference blend mode). I also cannot remember, that in the past years, the > scaling routine in Gimp produced noticeable wrong results. (Beside the > lanczos interpolation, that didn't work right, when it was introduced) Your analysis is wrong. There's a discussion about the problems and the solution in bug #464466 (and several other bug reports linked from there). This has also been extensively discussed on the gimp-developer mailing-list. Fact is also that scaling is not much slower in general. There are some cases where it became faster. Other cases became slower, but the results are of much better quality. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] stroke selection not antialiased
Simon Budig wrote: > Nathan Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>So why not convert your selection to a path then stroke the path? This is a >>good work around, and even in my mind now, this makes sense. The stroked >>path is antialiased. > > This is a good workaround if you know what you're doing and what effect > you're after. We just cannot make this descision on behalf of the user > from within Gimp code. I can't believe any user actually wants this behavior. But assuming some do, they could still get it by untoggling the Antialiased checkbox in Choose Stroke Style--and in fact, I would expect users who want aliased strokes are already doing that, unaware that the Antialiased setting makes no difference at all (that I can see, anyway). - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] stroke selection not antialiased
Sven Neumann wrote: > On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 18:14 -0400, Ernie Wright wrote: > >>"Does something the user does not expect" is the definition of a design >>flaw > > It's more like "technically it does the right thing, but the user > expects a different result". Design flaws aren't technical problems, they're conceptual problems. The program is doing the wrong thing correctly. - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Scaling in Gimp 2.6 is much slower than in Gimp 2.4
Claus Berghammer wrote: > Hello Gimp Users and Developers, > > This is a follow up of Bug 557950 (which in fact isn't a bug, according to > Sven Neumann ;-) > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557950 > > As described in the “Bug”, scaling in Gimp 2.6 series is far slower, than it > was in 2.4. Sven Neumann commented: > > “We have completely changed the scaling implementation. The new algorithm is > slower for some cases, but that is not a bug.” > > Since there is no explanation WHY the algorithm was rewritten, I guess 2 > possible reasons: > > 1.)The old code did something wrong in some cases > 2.)The new code was necessary due to GEGL integration > > For the first point, I compared scaling results from 2.4 and 2.6, and they > are (ignoring some harmless alignment issues) 100% identical (using > difference blend mode). I also cannot remember, that in the past years, the > scaling routine in Gimp produced noticeable wrong results. (Beside the > lanczos interpolation, that didn't work right, when it was introduced) > > So my question is, isn't it possible, to have both algorithms in Gimp, and > let the user decide which one he wants to use? (Option in Scale Dialog) > > If it was due to point 2, the GEGL integration, than can we expect a faster > version of the new scaling routine? Or will it be automatically faster, when > GEGL is integrated more/better? > > The current situation draws some users (not myself) to not use Gimp 2.6, and > stick with 2.4 instead, because the difference in speed is so dramatically. > > Sincerely, Claus Berghammer > I'd be curious to see some benchmarks comparing 2.4 and 2.6 in this regard so that we know just how dramatically different the speed is. Eric P. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Identify old GIMP font
On Monday 27 October 2008, Per Gregers Bilse wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not really a big/fanciful user of GIMP, but have found it > extremely useful on the odd occasion. One such was when I needed > to create a set of buttons for a virtual instrument, 4-5 years > ago. > > I have now forgotten the name of the font I used (...) and I'm > wondering if anybody here might be able to identify it. Please > have a look at the screenshot at > > http://www.networksignature.com/normalshot.png -snip--- What the others have said is undoubtably correct. The original font you used is probably not Eurostyle but there are some similarities, it might work for you as a replacement see ya -- dh ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Wacom Pen Buttons
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2008-10-23 at 1342.25 +0200): > Hi, I'm using Gimp 2.6.0 for Windows with a Wacom Cintiq 12WX graphical > tablet. Whenever I press one of the buttons on the Wacom pen it comes up with > the right-click file,edit etc. menu and the other button moves the canvas > around. I keep hitting them by mistake and would like to disable this. Long time since I had a Wacom in MSWindows, but I remember the driver had a tool to configure what each button did (send MB2, send double click of MB1, disable, etc). Maybe that is still provided so look into what Wacom installed at the operating system level, not just GIMP config options. Personally I found the extra buttons useful, so just started holding the pen with the button near finger tip but not touched... similar idea to old fountain pens, they have a single holding position. ;] GSR ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Identify old GIMP font
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2008-10-27 at 1842.17 +0100): > Per Gregers Bilse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > The font in question is the one used in the buttons on the left (Hour, > > Day, Week, etc). I do remember it had an odd name, there was only one > > of its kind (no bold, italic, etc), and it came in only half a dozen > > sizes or so. > > That looks like one of the "Fixed" fonts shipped with the X-Server. > > Since Gimp no longer uses the X11-mechanisms for font selection it no > longer shows up in the font dialog. You need to somehow convince > fontconfig to provide that font as well. I currently cannot tell you ad > hoc how to achieve that. Modern fontconfig has /etc/fonts/ dir with config options and where you can write a local.conf file. Probably it has some defaults and other things (alternatives, examples) commented out. In some cases, there are files you can copy (or better symlinks) from the "conf.avail" subdir to the "conf.d" subdir and that way activate things. I see a README explaining all this, and "man fonts.conf" also helps. GSR ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Identify old GIMP font
Per Gregers Bilse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The font in question is the one used in the buttons on the left (Hour, > Day, Week, etc). I do remember it had an odd name, there was only one > of its kind (no bold, italic, etc), and it came in only half a dozen > sizes or so. That looks like one of the "Fixed" fonts shipped with the X-Server. Since Gimp no longer uses the X11-mechanisms for font selection it no longer shows up in the font dialog. You need to somehow convince fontconfig to provide that font as well. I currently cannot tell you ad hoc how to achieve that. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Identify old GIMP font
Hi, I'm not really a big/fanciful user of GIMP, but have found it extremely useful on the odd occasion. One such was when I needed to create a set of buttons for a virtual instrument, 4-5 years ago. I have now forgotten the name of the font I used (...) and I'm wondering if anybody here might be able to identify it. Please have a look at the screenshot at http://www.networksignature.com/normalshot.png The font in question is the one used in the buttons on the left (Hour, Day, Week, etc). I do remember it had an odd name, there was only one of its kind (no bold, italic, etc), and it came in only half a dozen sizes or so. I also remember that when I upgraded the system a year or so later, the font didn't show up in GIMPs font listing, and I made an important note of tracking it down (which I of course didn't get round to doing). Your help will be most appreciated. Thanks, best, -- Per ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] stroke selection not antialiased
Nathan Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > So why not convert your selection to a path then stroke the path? This is a > good work around, and even in my mind now, this makes sense. The stroked > path is antialiased. This is a good workaround if you know what you're doing and what effect you're after. We just cannot make this descision on behalf of the user from within Gimp code. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] stroke selection not antialiased
So why not convert your selection to a path then stroke the path? This is a good work around, and even in my mind now, this makes sense. The stroked path is antialiased. Nathan On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 18:14 -0400, Ernie Wright wrote: > > > "Does something the user does not expect" is the definition of a design > > flaw > > It's more like "technically it does the right thing, but the user > expects a different result". Unfortunately there is often no clear > solution for these kind of problems. > > > Sven > > > ___ > Gimp-user mailing list > Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user > -- Nathan Lane Home, http://www.nathandelane.com Blog, http://nathandelane.blogspot.com <>___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Scaling in Gimp 2.6 is much slower than in Gimp 2.4
Hello Gimp Users and Developers, This is a follow up of Bug 557950 (which in fact isn't a bug, according to Sven Neumann ;-) http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557950 As described in the “Bug”, scaling in Gimp 2.6 series is far slower, than it was in 2.4. Sven Neumann commented: “We have completely changed the scaling implementation. The new algorithm is slower for some cases, but that is not a bug.” Since there is no explanation WHY the algorithm was rewritten, I guess 2 possible reasons: 1.)The old code did something wrong in some cases 2.)The new code was necessary due to GEGL integration For the first point, I compared scaling results from 2.4 and 2.6, and they are (ignoring some harmless alignment issues) 100% identical (using difference blend mode). I also cannot remember, that in the past years, the scaling routine in Gimp produced noticeable wrong results. (Beside the lanczos interpolation, that didn't work right, when it was introduced) So my question is, isn't it possible, to have both algorithms in Gimp, and let the user decide which one he wants to use? (Option in Scale Dialog) If it was due to point 2, the GEGL integration, than can we expect a faster version of the new scaling routine? Or will it be automatically faster, when GEGL is integrated more/better? The current situation draws some users (not myself) to not use Gimp 2.6, and stick with 2.4 instead, because the difference in speed is so dramatically. Sincerely, Claus Berghammer -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Scaling-in-Gimp-2.6-is-much-slower-than-in-Gimp-2.4-tp20185528p20185528.html Sent from the Gimp User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Wacom Pen Buttons
Is there a file containing the preferences settings that I can manually edit in a text editor to change the default settings or something? -- Hroth ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] stroke selection not antialiased
Hi, On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 18:14 -0400, Ernie Wright wrote: > "Does something the user does not expect" is the definition of a design > flaw It's more like "technically it does the right thing, but the user expects a different result". Unfortunately there is often no clear solution for these kind of problems. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Wacom Pen Buttons
>You need to set it up within GIMP. It's under preferences, I think. When I try to configure the "configure extended input devices" box in the preferences window it lists only x,y,pressure,x tilt, y tilt and wheel for the WACOM Tablet Pressure Stylus and the "keys" tab is completely blank. Is this where the option is supposed to be? -- Hroth ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
