Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Rotoscoping
Mark Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For me, the most important feature of filmgimp/cinepaint is the > support for greater than 8 bits per color component (16 bit integer > and 32 bit floating point). Hear, hear! This is the only reason I have filmgimp on my system - the ability to edit 16-bit files from my cameras prior to doing final 8-bit work in Gimp. I would be very happy if I didn't have to use filmgimp for this, as (has been indirectly pointed out) the interface is rather old-fashioned. The first problem is it doesn't have a drag-n-drop interface similar to that used by gimp-remote (which I use for passing files to the Gimp from my database) and goes on from there. __ David Burren ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Rotoscoping
Hi, Mark Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Last week I attended a public meeting chaired by the cinepaint project > lead. I know very little about the reasons behind the cinepaint/gimp > split. I do think it's unfortunate that the split is hindering the > development of an open-source image editing program combining the > richness and maturity of gimp 1.2/1.3/2.0 with the color precision of > cinepaint. Support for more color models with more precision as well as better color management is one of the main goals of GIMP's future development. I don't think the split is effectively hindering this. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: Rotoscoping
"Sven Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Which begs for the question: why is current gimp not extended to > > include the film-gimp specific features? > > Who says it isn't? GAP already provides quite a lot of that > functionality (and more). Other features such as support for more > color spaces are being worked on. For me, the most important feature of filmgimp/cinepaint is the support for greater than 8 bits per color component (16 bit integer and 32 bit floating point). > The cinepaint developers clearly expressed that they are not > interested in such a merge. Last week I attended a public meeting chaired by the cinepaint project lead. I know very little about the reasons behind the cinepaint/gimp split. I do think it's unfortunate that the split is hindering the development of an open-source image editing program combining the richness and maturity of gimp 1.2/1.3/2.0 with the color precision of cinepaint. = -- MARK [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: Rotoscoping
Hi, Stefaan Himpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In my opinion > > it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this > > codebase. > > Which begs for the question: why is current gimp not extended to > include the film-gimp specific features? Who says it isn't? GAP already provides quite a lot of that functionality (and more). Other features such as support for more color spaces are being worked on. > Maybe after the bug week, a merge month can be organized? The cinepaint developers clearly expressed that they are not interested in such a merge. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Rotoscoping
Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Tuesday 09 September 2003 14:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice. Timothy Baldridge There is a version of Gimp that the Hollywood types have taken under their wing and modified specifically for motion picture use. It is a big league tool AFAIK. Perhaps someone else on-list knows more of the details. All I can say is that this application (now called cine-paint) is based on film-gimp which was forked from GIMP around version 1.0. GIMP-1.0 is a piece of code from the stone age. Lacking an overall design concept, this code is full of bugs, depends on unmaintained and outdated libraries and lacks any features that have been introduced to The GIMP during the last five years. In my opinion it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase. GIMP 1.0? hah... And I thought, when I ran it, that the lack of options was caused by them not updating all the GIMP features to the new image models. ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: Rotoscoping
Hi, > In my opinion it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase. Which begs for the question: why is current gimp not extended to include the film-gimp specific features? Maybe after the bug week, a merge month can be organized? Just a (probably too naive) newbie question, Stefaan. ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Testing 1.3.20
David Neary wrote: Tom Williams wrote: Thanks for posting a link to this bug report. I'm seeing a similar problem at startup but it's not font related and is related to the "tool-safe-mode" plugin: This is another commonly reported bug - see http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118517 To find bugs like this, you should probably add "CLOSED" and "RESOLVED" to the default set of bug statuses, and search for the most prominent word - in this case, searching for tool-safe-mode turned up 3 links :) In brief, that's an old plug-in that was removed in version 1.3.10, so if you had an older devel gimp installed and you didn't make uninstall of that, it's an old file left lying around. Delete it, and all will be well. Cheers, Dave. Thanks for the info. That did the trick! :) Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Rotoscoping
Hi, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 09 September 2003 14:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in > > gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of > > light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a > > e-mail answer would be nice. > > > > Timothy Baldridge > > There is a version of Gimp that the Hollywood types have taken under > their wing and modified specifically for motion picture use. It is a > big league tool AFAIK. Perhaps someone else on-list knows more of the > details. All I can say is that this application (now called cine-paint) is based on film-gimp which was forked from GIMP around version 1.0. GIMP-1.0 is a piece of code from the stone age. Lacking an overall design concept, this code is full of bugs, depends on unmaintained and outdated libraries and lacks any features that have been introduced to The GIMP during the last five years. In my opinion it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: [Gimp-developer] Making the color picker tool grab the alpha value
Hi, "Joao S. O. Bueno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, here is my idea: we postpone this 121331 for 2.2 , and instead of > automatically picking opacity with the color picker, change the GIMP > in a way that thre is a current opacity, choosen as the alpha > component of the current foreground color, and therefore, updated by > the color picker. And in each paint tool, let there be added a > checkbox that will make The GIMP use that tool opacity slider value > or the Current Opacity, selected with the foreground color. > > What do you say Sven? To me this sounds quite complicated and it will certainly introduce a couple of problems like for example http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120912 Since you failed to describe a usage scenario so far, I don't see how this change would improve the user experience. So far I can only see how it makes both the code and the user interface more complex. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Testing 1.3.20
Tom Williams wrote: > Sven Neumann wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >BandiPat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > >>The new Gimp compiled fine today and installed. Upon trying to run > >>it though, it got to a load point and just died. I ran it from the > >>shell to check for more messages and found it doing a Segmentation > >>fault > >> > >> > > > > > >See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121752 > > > >Updating fontconfig to version 2.2 should fix the problem for like it > >fixed it for everyone else who reported this problem so far. > > > > > >Sven > > > > > > > Thanks for posting a link to this bug report. I'm seeing a similar > problem at startup but it's not font related and is related to the > "tool-safe-mode" plugin: This is another commonly reported bug - see http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118517 To find bugs like this, you should probably add "CLOSED" and "RESOLVED" to the default set of bug statuses, and search for the most prominent word - in this case, searching for tool-safe-mode turned up 3 links :) In brief, that's an old plug-in that was removed in version 1.3.10, so if you had an older devel gimp installed and you didn't make uninstall of that, it's an old file left lying around. Delete it, and all will be well. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
