On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 12:53:31AM +1000, David Hodson <hodsond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A hack? I thought it was a mathematically elegant representation of
> an image layer, which is why I see a reason to support it. I'm trying
AFAICS premultiplied alpha is a speed hakc and nothing more, for cases where
sacrificing precision for speed makes sense.
> And even if you consider it a hack, don't people use pre-mult alpha?
Gimp tries to convert pre-multiplied alpha back to normal alpha, as Nick
said, so it is supported (or should be). This really sounds like a load
(and maybe save) issue (most image formats do not support pre-multiplied
alpha).
Can you state any reason why premultiplied alpha should be directly
supported as data representation?
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
