> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2008-10-27 at 1842.17 +0100):
> > 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 th
Claus Berghammer wrote:
> When I zoomed in with 2.6.0, put the cursor on the "pixels of interest", and
> type "1", the pixels of interest WAS at (or close to) the cursor (as
> expected). Now, with 2.6.1, the "pixels of interest" are somewhere, but not
> by far close to the cursor. Instead I always
> A task that I find myself frequently performing is cropping images. In
> the old GIMP I used to drag out a selection box, and then use one of the
> control keys (CTRL/ SHIFT/ ALT, can't remember which sadly) to move it
> around until it looked right.
One link to rule them all
http://docs.gimp.
Hello All,
I've been using the GIMP off and on since 2.2 and find it to be a very
good piece of software. I'm a web programmer and don't tend to do much
graphic design work, but occasionally I need a button / background in a
hurry and I enjoy having a play around to see what I can come up with.
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 04:01 -0700, Claus Berghammer wrote:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557950
I have done some more tests and I tend to agree that the multi-pass
scaling doesn't improve the quality when upscaling. It's a very simple
change to get upscaling perform more simila
Hello...
@Eric P:
Upscaling image:
500px -> 5000px (bicubic):
Gimp 2.6.1: 35,21 sec
Gimp 2.4.7: 6,9 sec
Downscaling layer:
Image is 5000x5000 px, 2 white layers
Scaling top layer to 2500x2500px (bicubic):
Gimp 2.6.1: 7,85 sec
Gimp 2.4.7: 4,78 sec
@Sven Neumann:
Thanks for your hint on the rel
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 17:54 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
> I can confirm this bug. If you stroke using a tool (eg paintbrush),
> the result is antialiased, so I don't understand why the vector
> stroking isn't
Simon has actually explained this quite well already. The outline you
are strok
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ernie Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>>>
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:19 +, Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
> I have now forgotten the name of the font I used (...) and I'm wondering
> if anybody here might be able to identify it.
Have you tried "What the Font" (http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/)
already?
Sven
_
