Re: [Gimp-user] Stripping an image from solid background
Thanks Malcom and Tom, The color to alpha did a beautiful job - exactly what I was looking for. My brain told me all these years that there must be a simple way to accomplish this... thanks for making me whole again. Eric P. --- Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 11:31:45PM -0800, Eric > Pierce wrote: > > I've wondered for years if there's any way to > > perfectly strip an image from a solid colored > > background while maintaining any alpha channel > info. > > > > Take this image for instance. > > http://epierce.freeshell.org/temp/index.html > > > > The background is 100% white. But there's some > > definate blending going on with the image border > and > > with the image shadow. > > Have a look at this tutorial which describes what > you want to do: > > > http://www.gimp.org/~sjburges/color_to_alpha/demo/color2alpha.html > > Cheers, > Malcolm __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Gimp-Perl
After playing around with Gimp-Perl for a few days since I could not make ImageMagick do what I needed (easily anyhow), I came across a few problems. It appears that someone already has the same issues I have with running Script-Fu from perl (just like the tutorials said I would), but I am wondering if it applies to just scheme based script fu, or plugins as well? Thanks, Greg Oliver ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 07:04:42PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >convert sourcefile -filter mitchell -geometry destfile > > ok, I tried thisand I got an image that was not up to par with what can be > done with Adobe's Image ready doing a similiar process. However, with Gimp, I Well, there are also other filters. Quadratic or Cubic should closely emulate gimp's behaviour. But from the script I see that you are using jpegs. I hope you are aware of the fact that jpegs can and do introduce lots of pixel errors? > Ok, if script-fu is not meant to be run from the command line without > interactionthen why the batch mode option? To run script-fu from the commandline. The fact that script-fu is broken in lots of areas _currently_ does not mean it was designed to be broken ;) OTOH, Simon Budig always explains to me that script-fu was not designed for this kind of thing, and he knows a lot more about it. > Based on the documentation I have seen, I should be able to call a script-fu > function and everything should work. That is not the case. The script will (hopefully) enable some script-fu expert (not me) to find the problem. Or maybe fix script-fu, if it really is the problem. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem (ATTEMPT #2)
Doh! Please Ignore that last attachmentI added the wrong one. I was testing something else at that point. This one illustrates what I was trying to do. --Matt -- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 04:32:07 - (GMT), wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:35:36PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > image resizing from the command line. I know that many of you out there > are > > going to point out that ImageMagick will do what I am looking for. I have > > already gone down that path and the image quality of the scaled images is > not up > > Then you probably have done sth. wrong, as ImageMagick's algorithms are > way superior (and way slower ;) to the mere cubic interpolation gimp uses. > > Are you sure you tried sth. like: > >convert sourcefile -filter mitchell -geometry destfile > ok, I tried thisand I got an image that was not up to par with what can be done with Adobe's Image ready doing a similiar process. However, with Gimp, I can produce an image that is better and smaller than what Image Ready and ImageMagick can do.The mitchell filter was better than the cubic filter by far...but they were still pixelated when you started to look at the images closely. I personally think the images are good enough for the webhowever, the client that I am working for is accustom to having an image of a very high quality. > also, other filters than the mitchell filter (which is usually best) are > also worth a try, "cubic" for example should rather closely match gimp's > quality. > > > Well, I am no scirpt-fu expert, but I get a lot of mail that tells me that > scirpt-fu simply doesn't work noninteractively, or at leats not correctly, > or returns too earfly etc.. etc.. Ok, if script-fu is not meant to be run from the command line without interactionthen why the batch mode option? from the gimp man pages -b, --batch Execute the set of non-interactively. The set ofis typically in the form of a script that can be executed by one of the Gimp scripting extensions. Based on the documentation I have seen, I should be able to call a script-fu function and everything should work. That is not the case. Attached is a cut down version of the script that I am attempting to call. I am calling this script from the command line as follows.. gimp -b '(script-fu-test-script 1 "200" "200" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/W-49M01_ven.jpg" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/W-49M01_ven_n.jpg")' When this is run...I get back batch command: executed successfully. However, there is no outputted image to be found. If I change the 1 to 0 to run interactivly, it pops up the prompt for me to enter in the values needed for the script and runs successfully. Is there any way of outputting what has been passed into a script? Thoughts? Comments? Matt Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] test-script.scm Description: Binary data ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP and CMYK
Thus spoke John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Understood. The reference to Gimp 2.0 and CMYK is the closest thing to > a commitment to incorporate useful CMYK capability in Gimp that I > have come across. There are two markets, on-line stuff and printed > stuff. Without CMYK Gimp is limited to the first and effectively > locked out of the second. Hence it cannot be considered as a complete Depends on your point of view. I've done several covers for Linux Journal using nothing but GIMP without CMYK. LJ took my uncompressed TIFF submission and let their printer handle CMYK issues. I've done similar things for CD covers and other prints. I did the cover to my first book with GIMP. Many smaller print houses have been eager to work with me on issues like this - essentially I'm handing off the CMYK work to them. So you aren't "effectively" shut out of the print market. It just depends on how precise you need to be. In my case, none of the prints I've done have been significantly altered by the printers doing the CMYK work for me. > Photoshop replacement no matter how many marvelous tricks it will do.=20 Again, depends on what you're working on. > CMYK is the one bold move that would make all the difference in > publishing.=20 But this I have to agree with. GIMP does need CMYK support for wider acceptance. One can always argue if "wider acceptance" is necessary. Depends on the established goal, I suppose. > I hope for a world where the non-conformist can do whatever he/she > needs to do with free software. The only non-free program I use > regularly is called Mup, a music notation program I paid $29.00 for > many years ago. TeX means never having to buy InDesign or Quark for > typesetting. Gimp should mean never having to buy PhotoShop for book > covers. Until that happy day I will struggle along with Gimp + > pnmtotiffcmyk. Mostly true. But I went through this with book publishers too way before OpenOffice and AbiWord were as stable as they are now. I got them to work with RTF and Applix (which isn't open source, but was available for Linux at the time). I just had to explain my position and need to use the products I was writing about. The same can be said for GIMP and printers. You just have to work a little harder to get things done with those who do not use your tools. -- Michael J. Hammel | I hope that after I die people will say of me: The Graphics Muse | "That guy sure owed me a lot of money." [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey http://www.graphics-muse.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 04:32:07 - (GMT), wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 07:35:36PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > image resizing from the command line. I know that many of you out there > are > > going to point out that ImageMagick will do what I am looking for. I have > > already gone down that path and the image quality of the scaled images is > not up > > Then you probably have done sth. wrong, as ImageMagick's algorithms are > way superior (and way slower ;) to the mere cubic interpolation gimp uses. > > Are you sure you tried sth. like: > >convert sourcefile -filter mitchell -geometry destfile > ok, I tried thisand I got an image that was not up to par with what can be done with Adobe's Image ready doing a similiar process. However, with Gimp, I can produce an image that is better and smaller than what Image Ready and ImageMagick can do.The mitchell filter was better than the cubic filter by far...but they were still pixelated when you started to look at the images closely. I personally think the images are good enough for the webhowever, the client that I am working for is accustom to having an image of a very high quality. > also, other filters than the mitchell filter (which is usually best) are > also worth a try, "cubic" for example should rather closely match gimp's > quality. > > > Well, I am no scirpt-fu expert, but I get a lot of mail that tells me that > scirpt-fu simply doesn't work noninteractively, or at leats not correctly, > or returns too earfly etc.. etc.. Ok, if script-fu is not meant to be run from the command line without interactionthen why the batch mode option? from the gimp man pages -b, --batch Execute the set of non-interactively. The set ofis typically in the form of a script that can be executed by one of the Gimp scripting extensions. Based on the documentation I have seen, I should be able to call a script-fu function and everything should work. That is not the case. Attached is a cut down version of the script that I am attempting to call. I am calling this script from the command line as follows.. gimp -b '(script-fu-test-script 1 "200" "200" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/W-49M01_ven.jpg" "/export/home/matt/toprocess/W-49M01_ven_n.jpg")' When this is run...I get back batch command: executed successfully. However, there is no outputted image to be found. If I change the 1 to 0 to run interactivly, it pops up the prompt for me to enter in the values needed for the script and runs successfully. Is there any way of outputting what has been passed into a script? Thoughts? Comments? Matt Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] test-eastbay.scm Description: Binary data ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] rgb to cymk
On Thursday 26 December 2002 13:40, zeus wrote: > John Culleton wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 December 2002 02:36, sam ende wrote: > >>i need to convert an xcf)from rgb to a cymk tif (for commercial > >>printing) image, how do i do this best ? > >> > >>thanks > >> > >>sammi > >>___ > >>Gimp-user mailing list > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user > > > > There is a free program pnmtotiffcmyk in the pbm pack of > > conversion programs. Save your gimp image as pnm first of course. > > > > When I used it on a photo the colors were a bit duller. > > Iam also intrested on usiong gimp as printing graphic soft. Where i > can find pbm or pnm. And how to do it. > From my previous reply: The two programs mentioned above by Roland are part of the netpbm package available on sourceforge.net. netpbm replaces some older utilities found in the pbmplus package. --- The programs come with Man pages. and there is some online help. You are correct: CMYK capability will break down a big barrier and they are correct: this is not a trivial task. Jokes or no jokes, it is important to keep this objective at the front of the development effort. Ultimately we hope to be able to load, manipulate, save and separate CMYK images. The problem with conversion programs is color balance. CMYK has a more limited gamut than other formats. So when you convert the colors shift. To correct this shift one has to work more or less blind in some other form, like RGB. As a stopgap a color correction feature that distorts an RGB image so that it uses the limited gamut of a corresponding CMYK image might be useful. I don't know about the technical practicalities of this however. My thanks of course to the developer community that makes this at least a future dream if not a present reality. HTH -- John Culleton Able Indexers and Typesetters Rowse Reviews Culleton Editorial Services http://wexfordpress.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] rgb to cymk
Niklas wrote: On Thu, 2002-12-26 at 14:40, zeus wrote: Iam also intrested on usiong gimp as printing graphic soft. Where i can find pbm or pnm. And how to do it. I can not wait untill 2010 to wait gimp supporting CMYK, if GIMP want to beat PS, the first target is supporting CMYK. I don't think that the main idea of GIMP is to beat any other application. And also you didn't really read the whole mail did you? He said j-o-k-e. But it will take time to do this things even though you might think it is easy it is not. You have to give things like this time. And next time read the whole mail and don't read between the lines. What I think he tries to say is that there is no actual date for anything right now. Regards Ahhaha it's my mistake, i know it was a joke, but i forget to tell you guys, that i also didn't very serious when telling that gimp beat other applications (f.e PS). I like GIMP a lot, in fact right now iam making a manga (japanese comic) using gimp, since it's only use grayscale mode. I dont have to worry about gamut or CMYK color corection. If i want to making color illustration, i switch into W$ and run PS. Since it's faster coloring in PS, for printing only. If making color illustration for screen some time usin GIMP (linux). OK, my apologize, if some one affense what i was said. But, it would be great if GIMP support CMYK (hehehe :) ), but i can wait..and pray, coz i can't help. I am not a apps programer. hehehe ;) GIMP = Great Image Manipulation n Perfect -- == Bajing Loncat Studio Illustrator http://www.megspace.com/arts/zeussama/ [personal website] http://www.bajingloncat.com [Bajing Loncat Studio website] == ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
