Hi, rockwalrus@xxxxxxxxx (2006-04-21 at 2311.22 -0400): > On 4/19/06, GSR - FR <famrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > dneary@xxxxxxx (2006-04-19 at 1158.08 +0200): > > > > How is this fairly straightforward with the current architecture? I > > > > would rather say that it is currently almost impossible to implement > > > > sanely. > > > Ah, but I'm insane. > > > Add a layer type for effect layers, and define 3 operations that you can > > > associate with the layer (to start): curves, levels and colour balance. > > > All the operations are pixel-by-pixel, which should make things easier. > > > Then hack the projection code to add a special case for an effect layer. > > Internally I would say they are blend modes. Make them special so > > content is fixed and flat (better compression), so only layer mask > > matters. Then make the formula for the blend mode be curves, levels, > > colour balance... whatever you can find that is pix to pix (and > > probably LUT based in many cases, if not all) and make it work in BG > > while the FG is unused. The settings would be stored in a parasite. > Excellent idea. Unfortunately, when people say they want layer > effects most of the time what they mean is that they want spiffy > auto-drop shadows. Of course, that's not that hard to represent with > a few parameters. But it's not exactly something you can implement > with a LUT. Still, I think it's pretty doable as a custom layer. > Perhaps implementing some as blend types and some as custom layers is > a good plan. What I described above is what matches David text ("curves, levels and colour balance"). He could had used the name Adjustment Layer (the PS term) or a different description. What you describe is named Layer Styles (in PS). People want Adjustment Layers anyway too. The main difference I can see is that one has a layer mask as a requisite (and the operations performed are in what that layer mask lets pass) and the other has pixel data (and the operations are performed in those pixels). Global view: http://depts.washington.edu/sacg/services/workshops/desktop/photoshop2/layers.shtml Adjusment layers (AL, mixed with other topics): http://www.arraich.com/ps6_tips_llayers1.htm Layers Styles (LS): http://www.arraich.com/effects1/aaeffects_main.htm And from the bugs and talks in the past, what some people would like is a "no limits" version, in which you can apply any filter. That has a problem compared to PS ways, the order. PS declares one special kind of layer (AL) that works in same order than others, and a reduced set of operations (LS) applied in the order that makes sense (embossing the result of the drop shadow? weird) to a given layer. For a "no limits" the interface has to be reviewed, one option being some kind of order index, other being a graph approach, in which the user defines all the orders and relations (this would allow filters that work with multiple input or output drawables, for example). That is why I see AL to be the simpler to do, then LS (it would require a system to keep the user data and swap with the result data, depending if editing or compositing) and finally the full "you do whatever you want" system. GSR _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer