Re: [Gimp-developer] image growing size - is it true? is it normal?

[Campbell J Barton <cbarton@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David, the onlything I still need is resizing/ rotating of patterns 
on the fly while I paint from the clone tool- or fill the images in.
Any quotes ? :)
- Cam



David Neary wrote:

> Hi Cam,
>
> You sent this to me personally - would you mind sending it to the
> list?
>
> I think your ideas are pretty good, by the way.
>
> Also - are you interested in fleshing out properly the idea of
> bounties again? The response to your last request was poor, but I
> think that we could formalise something by working (with Sven) on
> a list of 5 or 10 bounties, and if we put a reasonable dollar
> figure with the features, and coordinate the bounty program with
> the release schedule, I think we can get a decent response.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave.
>
> Campbell J Barton wrote:
>  
>
> > To me this seams simple
> >
> > There are 2 different things-
> > 1) Image Memory usage. (What it currently is)
> >
> > 2) Image Size (flat/expanded) -
> > flat simply bing the memory used by the image assuming is was flattened
> > expanded being the size of each layer added together - undo's etc Ignored.
> >
> > or even simpler
> >
> > 1) memory used by image
> >
> > 2) roughly the size of an umcompressed XCF
> >
> > 3) the size of the image as an uncompressed tiff/bmp whatever.
> >
> > An option for each would be nice :)
> >
> > - Cam
> >
> >
> >
> > David Neary wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Hi Joseph,
> > >
> > > Joseph Heled wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > The caption below the image says 46.9 MB
> > > > I add a layer with Layer/New Layer. The caption says  70.3 MB
> > > > I delete the layer. Caption stays 70.3 MB
> > > > I Layer/New Layer again. The caption says: 93.7 MB
> > > > I delete the layer.  Caption stays 93.7 MB
> > > >
> > > > Should I believe the numbers or not? I understand the gimp might be 
> > > > allocating memory and keeping it, but it does not mean the size of the 
> > > > image keep growing indefinitely? What am I missing?
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > When you delete the layer, the delete step is registered in the
> > > undo stack. The undo stack is stored with the image in memory,
> > > so the layer actually moves from the layer stack to the undo
> > > stack. To change this behaviour, you could reduce the minimum
> > > number of undo steps saved to 1, say, which will discard the old 
> > > data as soon as the undo stack goes past that number of steps
> > > (if you're making small changes like visibility changes, for
> > > example, your undo stack will grow much more, since the second
> > > undo parameter is the memory limit of the undo stack once you go
> > > past the minimum number of undo steps).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dave.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > --
> > Campbell J Barton
> >
> > 133 Hope Street
> > Geelong West, Victoria 3218 Australia
> >
> > URL:    http://www.metavr.com
> > e-mail: cbarton@xxxxxxxxxx
> > phone: AU (03) 5229 0241
> >
> >    
>
>  


--
Campbell J Barton

133 Hope Street
Geelong West, Victoria 3218 Australia

URL:    http://www.metavr.com
e-mail: cbarton@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: AU (03) 5229 0241