Hello, On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 15:50 +1030, David Gowers wrote: > >> I think we would have to. At least, in my vision, where we want >> GIH/GBR to be eventually deprecated in preference of SVG. This would >> require 2 things: >> a) support multiple brushes in a SVG brush file, ala GIH (presumably >> a group for each brush) > > How useful are brush pipes (or image hoses) really? As far as I can see > their primary use is for simulating brush transformations. We can > already do that better on the fly. As Alexia said, animation; and irregular brushing, arbitrary/complex effects (eg making pressure correspond to darkening + gradient mapping (which is different from darkening a gradient mapped brush)); clever usage can make them quite effective for building textures, and the list goes on. Of course, we could also do that if the brush dynamics allowed us to select between multiple brushes according to input values. But that strikes me as demanding too much from the user. >> For bitmap images in SVG brush files (eg. for patterning), we will >> probably want to use embedded images. Eventually for parametrizable >> brushes, we'll want to support external bitmap references (in which >> case we'll need to consider how to ensure that the user gets the right >> resources and that reference links are resolved correctly (probably >> relative to the .gimp-2.X/ toplevel directory)). > > Why don't we just use PNG files for bitmap brushes? That's fine by me. However it doesn't relate to what I mentioned above - SVG brushes that use bitmaps as resources (patterns etc) - 'mainly-vector' brushes. David _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
