[Gimp-developer] unsharp mask
> Now, looking through the code I don't see gimp doing anything really > different from me outside >of the convolution matrix code. Frankly, I don't > understand the convolution matrix code. >Why does it take 50 samples and then average them? Is this significant? even if i am not a developer i may assure you that consider the neighboring pixels (that is what convolution matrix are for ) is VERY significant, and sure that may explain well why result look simultaneously more contrasted and smoother. i think you should really give a look to what convolution matrix may do -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Blocking for...@gimpusers.com
>On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:28 PM, wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the running "polemical" thread on VG filter has made me aware of what is >> presumably a new feature on that gimpusers.com blog that allows users of >> the site direct access to this list via the address for...@gimpusers.com >> >> Would it be a best to simply block this address? ggcarting i fear that will not solve: I found convenient the gimpusers interface but I am registered on this list from long before was a gimpusers interface. I am sorry to have started such huge debat on such triviality I dont care much of the faith of that filter and the more the debat inflate the less i care about Van Gogh filters still i think me AS IT IS NOW, would be better not in gimp ggcarting has the merit to have found a possible use of VG, It is a pity that a similar use would require a preview while VG can't display any preview ...and so still seems AS IS IT NOW unusable. But i don't care much, i reported, you have read the report, for me the case is closed and with no offence -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
>I think that You are wrong. Did You asked to all GIMP users before saying that >something is not useful and nobody uses it? >I haven't been asked. Please, don't say that nobody uses it, because You don't >know it. Also, It could be filters (scripts) that uses this filter, and They >would be broken. Your reply with theorical general questions to a my practical and speciphic question. now would you please explain me why you want THAT filter, why do you want preserve the Van Gogh filter ? what use you do of that filters? You could describe how the Van gogh filter integrate in your workflow ? Or even a example, a video or a tutorial or a blog entry that describe a possible use of that filter?, If not i would tempted to believe that you also never used that filter, and that , as almost everybody else , you get no idea of its possible practical use. Maybe you talk of general principles, i talk of a crappy filter that nobody know why was never added to gimp the only one described as "effects that nobody understand"... -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote: > You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script > somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API, > we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :) In this case i'm ready to bet 100 Euro that till now any bundled or even third party script or plugin has Van Gogh as a dependency, i see most on replies are focused on the general matter But this IS a big exception, it is a insult to the Gimp product vision that such filter is ,after 14 years that nobody use , and not because is too complex but because is too crappy to be used More 1)from 14 years this filter is misplaced in a totally wrong gimp menu (Artistic submenu in filter but the filter has nothing to do with a artistic filter Would fit better in a RENDER menu 2)IT is misnamed the effect has nothing to do with Van Gogh, or any other painter,nothing to do with a paint or draw effects. Obviously 1 is consequence of 2, since was misnamed as "Van Gogh" somebody tough was a artistic filter, so ended up to be not only in gimp by mistake for 14 years but also from 14 years mislabelled and misplaced And no i will not report to bugzilla because as no bug to be reported It is impossible prove that doesn't work properly since is impossible guess what should do The only BIG bug to report is the fact that such thingy is still in Gimp PS If has to be preserved till 3.0 i may hope at least to be relabelled,moved in the right submenu and with a more descriptive tooltip ? as example CRAPPYFIER -tooltip_ this filter will replace all the pixels of your image with crap -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
>The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include >and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something >helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it >doesn't, we will remove it. / Martin that for what doesn't fit in the GIMP product vision But why wait to eliminate a plugin that doesn't fit in ANY product vision? this case is crystal clear: nobody use that plugin ,a plugin that quoting his tooltip produce ""Special effects that nobody understands" :-), This plugin replace all the original pixel of your photo with a abstract thingy, a "special effects", hard to define and unpredictable , ...but that always look as crap ( Why carry its code in gimp 2.8 , just delete the "van-gogh-lib.c file from the code (BTW is in gimp/plug-ins/common ) would took less developer time then a further debates The never used van gogh filter is in gimp from 1996 and survived all debates and clean up till now -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
If something >helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it >doesn't, we will remove it. This particularly applies to things that are >part of our plug-in API (like other plug-ins and libgimp* APIs) that we >can't remove after GIMP 3.0 has been released. > / Martin -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
I see the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp, even in the last git and i fear to see it even in next 2.8 I think nobody use it, also because would be close to the impossible do something definite with it: not only is not clear for what is for, but even after reading its help page, remain basically unusable as it is now because miss even the most rudimentary preview Much more widely used and interesting filters were removed (i.e. the freetype plugin) Many third party plugin fit much more in the gimp product vision Do you really think that the Van Gogh filters may fit in the gimp product vision ? In case at least fix it adding a preview, (but i think nobody will complain for its removal ) -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 2.7.1
>Sorry ... my bad ... on first install I missed the [Custom] button - I >think because I was perplexed by the forced uninstall and clicked w/o >thinking. After uninstall and reinstall everything is where I wanted it. > >Regards ... Alec > Maybe move the UNISTALL step after CUSTOM and add in CUSTOM a option to skip the Unistall will help a bit even if i would prefer see at the Unistall step a visible checkbox allowing to skip that PS soorry for the missed Re in the subject title...seems a little bug at gimpusers.com when using the forums...should be manually added as now -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 2.7.1
>> Apparently no way to skip unistall, or to cancell unistall/install process > >Apparently somebody is claiming things without even trying the >installer. Sergey i tried the installer and i could not see how cancel or skip unistalling AT THE POINT OF UNISTALLING Judging from messages i see here > >> The point is i can't see any reason to force unistall, > >The point is that the new installer combines 32 and 64-bit GIMP in a >common installer, and once it becomes stable, many people will be >upgrading from 32-bit GIMP 2.6 - I didn't saw any option in the 2.7.1 installer for chose 32 or 64 bit even if my computer support 64 bit i suppose installed, without asking the 32 bit version since all my extra plugin, that were usually not compiled to work at 64 bit, seem working fine >.. many people will be >upgrading from 32-bit GIMP 2.6 - >it would make no sense for these >people to keep both GIMP 2.6 and 2.8 at the same time, so the new >installer removes the old version first. Since this functionality >needs to be tested before it's deployed in the stable installer, it's >forced in the unstable one (the uninstall will be optional, but I >haven't implemented that yet). Sure? most (if not all) of third party plugin are not compiled for 64 bit but only for 32 so many may prefer run a 32 bit gimp even if a 64 bit version could be available Or simple they may wish to run a stable version for work...and a beta for the fun to test new features... -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 2.7.1
For not clear reasons the Windows installer of 2.7.1 force unistall of previous version of gimp Apparently no way to skip unistall, or to cancell unistall/install process The point is i can't see any reason to force unistall, the 2 version create 2 different gimp folder in the user directory...and for the rest seems run well alongside about the question on ufraw and thor reply >But be aware then that telling about it might inspire random, more >clueless, other people to repeat the trick without really knowing what >they are doing. > >--tml reply is correct but replacing intl.dll with libintl-8.doesn't not create problem only with ufraw But with most, almost all "extra" plugins without intl.dll they all (except Gmic, including Gap-2.6) abort at loding time with error messages Only solution i could find is adding back intl.dll, (not renaming libintl-8, just add bact intl.dll ) Do you think may be a better solution? Advice all plugin writers to remap all the calls to intl to libintl may be pratical in long term to port plugins to gimp 2.8 but will not solve any of present problem As far i could test add back that intl.dll has no practical adverse side effects -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Windows snapshot of 2.7 - possible?
thank for sharing your build As Rob i will really appreciate some guidance on compiling from git I already compiled (thank to a detailed guide on the gimp wiki) the stable but i failed to adapt the steps to compile from git >Did you cross compile this, or compile it under windows? > >If under windows, can you provide any guidance on compiling from git >under windows? I have tried under MSYS but not had luck, mainly due >to the many dependencies, not being able to locate compiled binaries. > >Thanks in advance if you can help, > >-Rob A> > -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] A big thank you
>Yes I can, I would love it, any suggestion? You may have well some suggestions As example just explore the "download " section(s). Instead then a page with a ordered and clear list of options available for the different OS,each with the related link more a link for the source, you will find a quite confusing situation, on one hand a Downlaod for Windows thingy, that go on by redirecting from page to page,as in a race trough a labyrinth ...and with no apparent link back in case you chose for error the wrong OS On the other hand other generic Download pages where any indication of the existence of something as a " Windows OS " is missed..but are missed also also the most basic tips for Linux users as " were get a build for your distro " ( i know answer is simple," directly in your distro repository" ..but since other sw do offer directly binary for the main distro , also different answers may well be expected ...) This is what a not expert as me may spot at the very contact with the side ( "spot" is here a euphemism most of the casual visitors just smash there...and then they give up and download gimp from some other side as www.download com,Majorgeeks,Filehippo and similar.. or revert to ask advices to their distro forums ) But since is your field you should be able to notice more area that may need improvements -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Save + Export proposal
probably this will be my last reply on the matter, i do not like insist proposing something that someone else has to code, even if in this case would be just a trigger for not interactive call(s) I divided the objection in 2 groups, the first group focused on possible disadvantages and technical problem , ..the second in my opinion derived of some misunderstanding of what proposed, or how i proposed to implement In the first group >- so it is easy to set ( >but how to stop it for a file? it was in the Save >dialog, >but to get there again? Save as? >Suppose you do this. You edit something, and press >C-s. What would happen? Correct , i was too generic in proposing the change for "the save dialogs" let focus in the "Save as" dialog, in that case i can't image any similar problems (For who wish something as "save+export" a third party script may be a better option and the script already exist) # Then there is the second group of objection: a lot complains about the risk to complicate the code or on the work needed to modify both the Save and Export function >so why not add it anyway, doesn't hurt no? yes it does: >- by associating 2 or more export files, "Export to foo.png" >(ctrl-E) has to be redesigned and never be as good as now. >- you have coupled saving to exporting of multiple files, hard. >in general these things do not happen at the same time, >saving work is a different thing then delivering. write >times go up by a factor of 1+N, where N is the number of >export formats. >- UI also needs to be not-error-inducing and give a clear model >to users to how things work. this proposal here is one of several >to get a litle bit of export back into the Save dialog. >each of these creates _a_ way to export, that users may figure >out as _the_ way to export, because they are migrating from >2.6 to 2.8. No, it does not help that we have clear Export on >the File menu. we simply cannot let these models of export develop. well i can't see nothing to redesign (except a detail in the Save as dialog) neither any need to re-associate files or redesign ctrl_E Because i do not propose any change for the save function, but basically only a modification to the GUI of "save AS" Sure any change in the GUI is connected to a change in the code But in this case not to a change in the Save as functions: that "export copy too as"would be there just because is most handy for users there, but will not interfere on how the Save function will work but just add not interactive call(s) after saving will be done So whatever user will chose Save as will work as usual with no any change, no interference, no complications just at the end "Export" will be called in not interactive way passing as arguments the filename, the directory used to save and the chosen file formats(my mock up show how chose the file format ) and for the rest the user deafault. Export function does not need any modification to support not interactive call (as far i know): If the user chose to Save as+ export a jpg ...a not interactive call will be done if user wish also also png , a second call would be done to "export as png" using for the rest the identical arguments (same filename and directory + user defaults chosen for that format) --- - please allow me a metaphor Eat and Drink are 2 different concept ,no less then Save and Export Suppose you go in a Restaurant to eat, you order your food then you ask "do you have something to drink ?" And the waiter reply "sure we have!..but drinking is a different concept and we do not want create confusion in our clients. we have a separate room for who wish to drink, you will be welcome there Obviously eating there is not allowed, that is for drink...but you are free to change room anytime you feel thirsty and get back here when you wish to eat " The fact that 2 things are conceptually different do not exclude that may be much better achieve both simultaneously -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Progressive escalation of help
>On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > >> IMO the real solution is to shop documentation with GIMP. > >Ship, that is :) > >Alexandre YES !! And anyway label the gimp help as "additional packadge" is pure nonsense: for complex graphic software as Gimp the help is not something "additional" but is strictly needed -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Save + Export proposal
i knew that Peter Sikking (or somebody else from Gimp UI brainstorm staff)replied but the message get lost for technical problems (full storage disk) I am very interested to know the content of that reply,i hope you may send again now -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Save + Export proposal
I send the mock up to the gimp-Ui brainstorm. And for end users that may be interested ,in the while RobA cooked a script that offer basically equivalent features obviously can't offer same GUI of my mock up, but allow 1 ) to Save+Export , popping out a error message if the image was not already saved 2 )to Save AS + Export ...this basically allow to run the Save As dialog as usual and then automatically export copies in the chosen format Actually Export only in jpg and png but should be trivial add more format option But has a price to crowd even more the File menu with 2 additional entries while, in my opinion a similar added option to the Save dialogs will not screw up the GUI and will be clear and handy . Maybe no much feel the need as now but is hard feel the need for something never experienced before... Once experienced may be more clear that may be a time saver anyway the script works may be easy edited to add more export format (for example tiff, psd) and is here http://ffaat.pointclark.net/incoming/scripts/save_and_export_1.2.scm >> This assumption is wrong. Complex compositions will need to be refined for >> weeks. All work is done in XCF. Before final delivery there is only an >> occasional need to export to some other format. Your point is not too clear to me, i agree that a composition may take weeks, but at the end (at least in most cases ) as, not only to be saved but also to be exported Sure would be much less needed for who has to export only once in week,and much more needed by who has to export Save last edit +Export every 30 minutes But as added option seems to me unobtrusive in that Spheciphic GUI and the distiontion between SAVE and EXPORT is not only preserved but may even made more clear (at least in the mock up) -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Icons for layer modes
>so I am sorry. no additions solely for digital-artists. I am afraid that you undervalue creativity of who use gimp for photo or image editing I explain better, even if the goal may be different (as photo-retouch differs from use gimp to paint) the tool used are often the same So as who use gimp for paint may also take advantage of filters and tools developed with the goal of photo editing...who use gimp to retouch or edit, (in other words the group that you focus as the main users )may well benefit of improvement of brush tool...because they use same tools In this case as example i will not exclude the utility of a mix brush for restore digital or scannered images -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] more standard outputs option for plugin(was Renaming scripts/plugins in a standard way )
PS i didn't intend hjack the topic, just that was something i wanted ask from long time. (that = in few words include as standard more output options for the plugins bundled with gimp as add new layer(s)and create new image...leaving edit current layer as default but not as only option) and sorry i noticed only now the long unneeded quote at the bottom of my previous message -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] enhancement for eraser/brush tools: "resurrect erased/cleared"
OOPSS ...my apologies i should have check better before writing nonsense -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Logo scripts crash gimp 2.7
I am not sure if report to bugzilla because is about Gimp 2.7, on windows XP Each of the script in File/Create/Logos crash Gimp More exactly pop out Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime error "Runtime error! Program C:\Program Files\Gimp-2.7\bin\gimp-2.7.exe This application has requested the Runtime to terminate in a unusual way. Please contact...etc" and when pressing OK gimp abort immediately This happen with all Logos scripts i try till now . ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
