> Maybe the code for > > http://registry.gimp.org/node/19582 > > is useful? > > Nicolas Robidoux I looked at that one and they simply create a new image with a scaled version of the active layer, which is sub-optimal from a UI perspective (the plugin registers under the Image menu, but only scales one layer, and ends up create a new image). The "built-in" scaling options are: Image->Scale Image which scales all the layers, layer masks, channels (including the active selection) and paths of the image, not just the active layer Layer->Scale Layer which scales the active layer only but does not change the image canvas size or scale the associated layer mask (is that a reasonable behavior?). Thinking about it, I guess my initial question really had two parts: >From a UI perspective: - should an action like scaling create a new image? (I'm leaning towards no) - should an action like scaling scale all layers, masks, channels and paths of an image if it is the image menu (otherwise in the layer menu)? (I'm leaning towards yes) - should an action like scaling a layer also scale an associated layer mask? (yes?) - with 2.8 having layer groups, will any of this have to change? >From a programming perspective: - Assuming I have decided my plugin will rescale a layer only (i.e. from the user's perspective the active layer gets scaled) is it better to create a new drawable to contain the scaled image and insert it in the layer stack and delete the initial layer, or better to use gimp_pixel_rgn_init to grab the pixels from the source layer, then change the layer boundary size and and use gimp_pixel_rgn_init to create a second pixel region as an output buffer pointing to the newly sized drawable? -Rob A> _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
