On Thu, 07 Feb 2002, Jon Winters wrote: > Went to an Adobe conference yesterday and they claim photoshop 6 has been > tested with images up to 8000 layers. They said it can probably handle > more but that is where they stopped testing. How many layers are we > supporting? (heh... memory is cheap!)
Is there a limit? Does anybody have a machine with more than 4 GB of RAM to do some serious testing? ;-)
> The other biggie was limited support for _vector_ > stuff. Mainly type but you are also able to import layers from > Illustrator files. It would be kinda cool to pull in gfig elements and > keep them as vector layers when the image is saved as .xcf.gz > The vector layers would be rasterized as part of export to some other > image format. [...] > I've seen requests for some of this functionality before and I've also > seen gimp developers belly ache about it. I know Gimp is a bitmap > program... I also know Photoshop _used_to_be_ a bitmap program and now > their users have some really nice tools that I would like to see in the > Gimp some day.
There are several wishlist items related to the support for vectors. Start with this one: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68915 ...and then follow the links to bug #61786, #6893 and #70499.
Some time ago, I also thought that the GIMP was a bitmap program and should not mess with vectors, except for selections (paths). But now I have changed my mind. If you look at the commercial programs on the market today, most of the major paint programs have integrated more and mode vector functions: JASC's PaintShopPro, Adobe PhotoShop, the Corel suite, and probably others.
We need a big merge and re-write of GFig, GDynText, the FreeType plug-in, the Path tool and the layers dialog in order to make all of this possible. This is not a trivial task. I am not opposed to it and I think that it would be a very good idea. Unfortunately, nothing will happen until someone has the time (and skills) to implement these nice features.
> > Until then... Keep up the Good Work! GO WILBUR!
GO WILBER! Wilber, not Wilbur! ;-)
-Raphael
