Hi.
I've built gimp 2.2 on my system and since added a second head. I find
that if I create a large image and display it on my secondary head
(1600x1200) I cannot draw past 1024 pixels horizontally. If I try, the
cursor snaps back to the left, leaving a horizontal line if I use a
painting
Hi,
Ian Molton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've built gimp 2.2 on my system and since added a second head. I
find that if I create a large image and display it on my secondary
head (1600x1200) I cannot draw past 1024 pixels horizontally. If I
try, the cursor snaps back to the left, leaving a
It could also be a configuration problem with the pointing device.
This can be very miss-configured and still seem to be functioning
correctly most of the time.
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 11:47, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Ian Molton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've built gimp 2.2 on my
Sven wrote:
Let's see. We have GIMP 2.2 done and are preparing to switch to GEGL.
At this point you are trying to propose a kludge? Sorry, but I am not
going to read any further...
Well, the most recent ChangeLog entry for gegl is dated 3-25-04, and
if it is nearly ready to use, then the CVS
I've been thinking about three things that are highly desired but
have been waiting for the migration to gegl: support for 16 bits,
layer groups, and procedural layers. It seems to me that all of
them can be achieved in GIMP 2 without major infrastructure changes,
not perhaps in the most ideal
William Skaggs wrote:
Sven wrote:
Let's see. We have GIMP 2.2 done and are preparing to switch to GEGL.
At this point you are trying to propose a kludge? Sorry, but I am not
going to read any further...
Well, the most recent ChangeLog entry for gegl is dated 3-25-04, and
if it is nearly ready to
Hi,
William Skaggs wrote:
Well, the most recent ChangeLog entry for gegl is dated 3-25-04, and
if it is nearly ready to use, then the CVS archive and the gegl web
page are very misleading. Am I missing something?
No. Step 1 to using gegl is working on gegl. The needs for gegl
before we can
Hi,
William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven wrote:
Let's see. We have GIMP 2.2 done and are preparing to switch to GEGL.
At this point you are trying to propose a kludge? Sorry, but I am not
going to read any further...
Well, the most recent ChangeLog entry for gegl is dated 3-25-04,
I would be the first to applaud when 16bit is integrated, yet this does not feel
right long term, because any code written for 2 layers mode will have to
change when the data is correctly layout as a true 16bit number.
-Joseph
William Skaggs wrote:
I've been thinking about three things that are
Hi,
William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been thinking about three things that are highly desired but
have been waiting for the migration to gegl: support for 16 bits,
layer groups, and procedural layers. It seems to me that all of
them can be achieved in GIMP 2 without major
10 matches
Mail list logo
