Sounds like a good idea
On Jun 15, 2016 10:51 PM, "Americo Gobbo" wrote:

Hi all,
The Hardness parameter to Pencil Tool is not utilized, but is present in its Tool Options. Reading the documentation: “The Pencil tool is used to draw free hand lines with a hard edge. The pencil and paintbrush are similar tools. The main difference between the two tools is that although both use the same type of brush, the pencil tool will not produce fuzzy edges, even with a very fuzzy brush. It does not even do anti-aliasing.” If I have reason, I suggest delete the hardness Pencil parameter on tool options, to avoid mistakes/misleading on the UI. Thanks,
americo

_____________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives:https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Yep, may as well. lol
-C

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Pullins wrote:

Sounds like a good idea
On Jun 15, 2016 10:51 PM, "Americo Gobbo" wrote:

Hi all,
The Hardness parameter to Pencil Tool is not utilized, but is present in its Tool Options. Reading the documentation: “The Pencil tool is used to draw free hand lines with a hard edge. The pencil and paintbrush are similar tools. The main difference between the two tools is that although both use the same type of brush, the pencil tool will not produce fuzzy edges, even with a very fuzzy brush. It does not even do anti-aliasing.” If I have reason, I suggest delete the hardness Pencil parameter on tool options, to avoid mistakes/misleading on the UI. Thanks,
americo

_____________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives:https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Shouldn't we instead get rid of the pencil tool and add a no-anti-aliasing option to the brush?

On 20/06/16 20:51, C R wrote:

Yep, may as well. lol
-C

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Pullins wrote:

Sounds like a good idea
On Jun 15, 2016 10:51 PM, "Americo Gobbo" wrote:

Hi all,
The Hardness parameter to Pencil Tool is not utilized, but is present in its Tool Options. Reading the documentation: “The Pencil tool is used to draw free hand lines with a hard edge. The pencil and paintbrush are similar tools. The main difference between the two tools is that although both use the same type of brush, the pencil tool will not produce fuzzy edges, even with a very fuzzy brush. It does not even do anti-aliasing.” If I have reason, I suggest delete the hardness Pencil parameter on tool options, to avoid mistakes/misleading on the UI. Thanks,
americo

That's fine, except then you lose a dedicated tool to switch back and forth from.

That said, I never ever have any use for the pencil tool. It would not make me sad to see it go in favour of reducing number of tools. It hardly seems worth having two tools that do the same thing apart from one option.

My 2p.
-C

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Ofnuts wrote:

Shouldn't we instead get rid of the pencil tool and add a no-anti-aliasing option to the brush?

On 20/06/16 20:51, C R wrote:

Yep, may as well. lol
-C

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Pullins wrote:

Sounds like a good idea

On Jun 15, 2016 10:51 PM, "Americo Gobbo" wrote:

Hi all,

The Hardness parameter to Pencil Tool is not utilized, but is present in its Tool Options. Reading the documentation: “The Pencil tool is used to draw free hand lines with a hard edge. The pencil and paintbrush are similar tools. The main difference between the two tools is that although
both use the same type of brush, the pencil tool will not produce fuzzy edges, even with a very fuzzy brush. It does not even do anti-aliasing.” If I have reason, I suggest delete the hardness Pencil parameter on tool options, to avoid mistakes/misleading on the UI. Thanks,
americo

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:50 AM Ofnuts wrote:

Shouldn't we instead get rid of the pencil tool and add a no-anti-aliasing option to the brush?

This sounds like a great option. As CR says, if the only difference is that one parameter, then it makes sense. +1

Pat David
https://pixls.us
http://blog.patdavid.net

On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:17:59 Pat David wrote:

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:50 AM Ofnuts wrote:

Shouldn't we instead get rid of the pencil tool and add a no-anti-aliasing option to the brush?

This sounds like a great option. As CR says, if the only difference is that one parameter, then it makes sense. +1

While tossing around wild ideas, what about allowing people to add tool presets to their toolbox? That way you could have your pencil back by adding such a preset.

Tobias

While tossing around wild ideas, what about allowing people to add tool presets to their toolbox? That way you could have your pencil back by adding
such a preset.

For the two tools in question, this feature already exists. It's called the "Brushes" palate. ;)
-C

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Americo Gobbo (jag.rabisco@gmail.com) wrote:

The Tool Options of the Pencil and Paintbrush are identical... the unique difference is that Pencil don't have antialiasing... so, hard edges.

Note that the pencil tool also avoid non-integer brush coordinates, i.e. the brushes "snap" to whole pixel positions.

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 08:57 +0100, C R wrote:

That's fine, except then you lose a dedicated tool to switch back and forth from.

In particular, if you use a tablet you can have a "pencil" stylus and a "paintbrush" stylus.

Liam R. E. Quin 

On 21/06/16 17:00, Americo Gobbo wrote:

the Pencil tool is a classic.

A little-used classic. It has its uses (pixel art), but on the whole I have much more often redirected pencil users to the brush that the reverse.

A pixel brush seems like an adequate replacement for that functionality.

-C

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Ofnuts wrote:

On 21/06/16 17:00, Americo Gobbo wrote:

the Pencil tool is a classic.

A little-used classic. It has its uses (pixel art), but on the whole I have much more often redirected pencil users to the brush that the reverse.

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

A pixel brush seems like an adequate replacement for that functionality.

Again, no.

Try working with a pixel brush in a bigger magnification and check how the pixel-grid-snapping of the pencil tool makes a huge difference to the paintbrush.

Bye,
Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

A pixel brush seems like an adequate replacement for that functionality.

Again, no.

Try working with a pixel brush in a bigger magnification and check how the pixel-grid-snapping of the pencil tool makes a huge difference to the paintbrush.

If there's no anti-aliasing on the pixel brush, please explain how it would differ from the behaviour of the pencil tool.

I think you'll find it wouldn't. :)

-C

Bye,
Simon

--
simon@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:

https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

A pixel brush seems like an adequate replacement for that functionality.

Again, no.

Try working with a pixel brush in a bigger magnification and check how the pixel-grid-snapping of the pencil tool makes a huge difference to the paintbrush.

If there's no anti-aliasing on the pixel brush, please explain how it would differ from the behaviour of the pencil tool.

I think you'll find it wouldn't. :)

Have you actually tried to do what I outlined above?

The paintbrush tool resamples the brush when the pixel grid of the brush is not perfectly aligned to the pixel grid of the image.

A perfect non-antialiased 1 pixel brush typically gets spread across four adjacent pixels in the image, assuming you're working with a high zoom level and don't specifically align the brush to the pixel grid of the image.

The pencil tool doesn't do that.

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

Have you actually tried to do what I outlined above?

Have you? lol
No - I haven't. It's not currently possible to turn off anti-aliasing on the brush tool, so it's not possible to "test" it. However, knowing how anti-aliasing works, your statement is incorrect...

The paintbrush tool resamples the brush when the pixel grid of the brush

is not perfectly aligned to the pixel grid of the image.

Yes, but with anti-aliasing turned off (which you can't presently), it wouldn't.

A perfect non-antialiased 1 pixel brush typically gets spread across four adjacent pixels in the image, assuming you're working with a high zoom level and don't specifically align the brush to the pixel grid of the image.

I don't know why you would assume that. :) It's incorrect at any rate.

Anti-aliasing IS what average pixels to spread over a 4-pixel block. If you turn it off (which, again, you can't currently in the brush tool), and a single click with a 1px brush fills more than one pixel, then that would be incorrect behaviour.

-C

The pencil tool doesn't do that.

Bye, Simon
--
simon@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

Have you actually tried to do what I outlined above?

Have you? lol
No - I haven't. It's not currently possible to turn off anti-aliasing on the brush tool, so it's not possible to "test" it.

Ah, sorry. I missed that we're discussing hypothetical future characteristics of the tools here. I was just looking at the current difference between the pencil and the paintbrush tool.

However, knowing how anti-aliasing works, your statement is incorrect...

Well, if you choose to label the behaviour I described as "pixel-grid-snapping" (or the lack thereof) as "anti-aliasing" then it is not me who is making the error here. I actually don't think that they are the same.

The paintbrush tool resamples the brush when the pixel grid of the brush

is not perfectly aligned to the pixel grid of the image.

Yes, but with anti-aliasing turned off (which you can't presently), it wouldn't.

A perfect non-antialiased 1 pixel brush typically gets spread across four adjacent pixels in the image, assuming you're working with a high zoom level and don't specifically align the brush to the pixel grid of the image.

I don't know why you would assume that. :) It's incorrect at any rate.

This is *exactly* what the current paint brush tool does. And it really is no rocket science to test it. Just do as I explained above. I even did just a few moments ago, even if I knew this behaviour for years.

Anti-aliasing IS what average pixels to spread over a 4-pixel block. If you turn it off (which, again, you can't currently in the brush tool), and a single click with a 1px brush fills more than one pixel, then that would be incorrect behaviour.

The Pencil tool does two things (compared to the paintbrush) that are independent of each other:

a) it thresholds the alpha channel of the brush (with a quite low threshold)

b) it snaps the pixels of the brush to the pixels of the image, so that no resampling occurs.

This is the *current* state of Gimp. And it has been like this for ages.

If we want to put that as an option into the paintbrush (and lose the pencil) then describing both of these behaviours combined as "anti-aliasing" is IMHO misleading and wrong.

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Ofnuts wrote:

the Pencil tool is a classic.

A little-used classic. It has its uses (pixel art), but on the whole I have much more often redirected pencil users to the brush that the reverse.

...so that they would not be able to draw pixel-perfect rectangles and lines?

Because whenever people want that I tell them to use the Pencil tool.

Alex

To make things even more complicated, the new MyPaint brushes can have a pixel brush that behaves like pencil.

So if we get brush option to turn anti-aliasing off, we'll have 3 tools to make pixel art with..

-Petteri

On 22.6.2016 13:40, Simon Budig wrote:

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

Have you actually tried to do what I outlined above?

Have you? lol
No - I haven't. It's not currently possible to turn off anti-aliasing on the brush tool, so it's not possible to "test" it.

Ah, sorry. I missed that we're discussing hypothetical future characteristics of the tools here. I was just looking at the current difference between the pencil and the paintbrush tool.

However, knowing how anti-aliasing works, your statement is incorrect...

Well, if you choose to label the behaviour I described as "pixel-grid-snapping" (or the lack thereof) as "anti-aliasing" then it is not me who is making the error here. I actually don't think that they are the same.

The paintbrush tool resamples the brush when the pixel grid of the brush

is not perfectly aligned to the pixel grid of the image.

Yes, but with anti-aliasing turned off (which you can't presently), it wouldn't.

A perfect non-antialiased 1 pixel brush typically gets spread across four adjacent pixels in the image, assuming you're working with a high zoom level and don't specifically align the brush to the pixel grid of the image.

I don't know why you would assume that. :) It's incorrect at any rate.

This is *exactly* what the current paint brush tool does. And it really is no rocket science to test it. Just do as I explained above. I even did just a few moments ago, even if I knew this behaviour for years.

Anti-aliasing IS what average pixels to spread over a 4-pixel block. If you turn it off (which, again, you can't currently in the brush tool), and a single click with a 1px brush fills more than one pixel, then that would be incorrect behaviour.

The Pencil tool does two things (compared to the paintbrush) that are independent of each other:

a) it thresholds the alpha channel of the brush (with a quite low threshold)

b) it snaps the pixels of the brush to the pixels of the image, so that no resampling occurs.

This is the *current* state of Gimp. And it has been like this for ages.

If we want to put that as an option into the paintbrush (and lose the pencil) then describing both of these behaviours combined as "anti-aliasing" is IMHO misleading and wrong.

Bye, Simon

Ah, sorry. I missed that we're discussing hypothetical future characteristics of the tools here. I was just looking at the current difference between the pencil and the paintbrush tool.

Yes, it saves time if everyone reads the entire thread before commenting. I'm guilty of this too sometimes, though, so don't worry about it. :)

However, knowing how anti-aliasing works, your statement is incorrect...

Well, if you choose to label the behaviour I described as "pixel-grid-snapping" (or the lack thereof) as "anti-aliasing" then it is not me who is making the error here. I actually don't think that they are the same.

Anti-aliasing is a computer science term used for rendering lines and fills, and also for resampling.

You are describing the behaviour as "snapping". It's not snapping, it's just not averaging.
The effect is the same, however. One click of the mouse, one pixel is coloured in. It does not matter what you call it. The options for drawing a line in a raster image are generally either

1.Anti-aliased 2.Nearest-neighbor (aliased, or "snapping" as you like to call it. :) )

The paintbrush tool resamples the brush when the pixel grid of the brush

is not perfectly aligned to the pixel grid of the image.

Yes, but with anti-aliasing turned off (which you can't presently), it wouldn't.

A perfect non-antialiased 1 pixel brush typically gets spread across four adjacent pixels in the image, assuming you're working with a high zoom level and don't specifically align the brush to the pixel grid of the image.

I don't know why you would assume that. :) It's incorrect at any rate.

This is *exactly* what the current paint brush tool does. And it really is no rocket science to test it. Just do as I explained above. I even did just a few moments ago, even if I knew this behaviour for years.

Ah, I thought you understood. Please go back and read the entire email thread.

*It's not "rocket science" to do that either, or to understand that it's not possible to show what the brush tool would do with no anti-aliasing in GIMP.
I already know that the brush tool currently averages, this whole thread is about adding a feature to the brush tool to replace the pencil tool.*

* - Now, see how mean that sounded? Does it make you a bit angry? Aren't you glad I don't use that same tone in the rest of this email? :) Let's be nice to eachother.

Again, the behaviour would be the same, otherwise it would not be a single-pixel line, and would be an error in the aliasing (or nearest neighbor, or snapping).

The Pencil tool does two things (compared to the paintbrush) that are

independent of each other:

a) it thresholds the alpha channel of the brush (with a quite low threshold)

b) it snaps the pixels of the brush to the pixels of the image, so that no resampling occurs.

Again, b) is no different than nearest-neighbor algorithm for drawing aliased lines (or resampling images).

a) That's a more interesting issue. And is worth noting for brushes that are not hard-edged, or have Alpha. To test we would have to turn off anti-aliasing and see. It could be handled in lots of different ways. The way the Pencil tool currently works in this regard may or may not be the best.

For example, if you choose a fuzzy brush in the pencil tool, it's not fuzzy at all. It's still a hard-edged circle. Would it not be better to dither instead with solid pixels? You could do a lot more and much faster with pixel art if this were the case.

This is the *current* state of Gimp. And it has been like this for ages.

If we want to put that as an option into the paintbrush (and lose the pencil) then describing both of these behaviours combined as "anti-aliasing" is IMHO misleading and wrong.

The behaviour for one-pixel brush like you described is not misleading or wrong. If there are other side-effects, we can see what those are, and correct or improve the behaviour as we like. As it is, there is no way to test it in GIMP.

A logical first step would be to add the feature (which is a good one to add to Brushes anyway), then see if it replaces the Pencil tool adequately. If so, then replace it.
If not, then don't. :)

-C

-- simon@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/

So if we get brush option to turn anti-aliasing off, we'll have 3 tools to make pixel art with..

Hahaha! What do you want to bet it probably works /slightly/ different than either results from no anti-aliasing on brush, or the how the Pencil tool works.
smh. ;) Obviously we have some things to decide. I still recommend adding the no anti-aliasing option to the brush though, to use to test agains these other methods.

-C

-Petteri

On 22.6.2016 13:40, Simon Budig wrote:

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

Have you actually tried to do what I outlined above?

Have you? lol

No - I haven't. It's not currently possible to turn off anti-aliasing on the brush tool, so it's not possible to "test" it.

Ah, sorry. I missed that we're discussing hypothetical future characteristics of the tools here. I was just looking at the current difference between the pencil and the paintbrush tool.

However, knowing how anti-aliasing works, your statement is incorrect...

Well, if you choose to label the behaviour I described as "pixel-grid-snapping" (or the lack thereof) as "anti-aliasing" then it is not me who is making the error here. I actually don't think that they are the same.

The paintbrush tool resamples the brush when the pixel grid of the brush

is not perfectly aligned to the pixel grid of the image.

Yes, but with anti-aliasing turned off (which you can't presently), it wouldn't.

A perfect non-antialiased 1 pixel brush typically gets spread across

four adjacent pixels in the image, assuming you're working with a high zoom level and don't specifically align the brush to the pixel grid of the image.

I don't know why you would assume that. :) It's incorrect at any rate.

This is *exactly* what the current paint brush tool does. And it really is no rocket science to test it. Just do as I explained above. I even did just a few moments ago, even if I knew this behaviour for years.

Anti-aliasing IS what average pixels to spread over a 4-pixel block.

If you turn it off (which, again, you can't currently in the brush tool), and a single click with a 1px brush fills more than one pixel, then that would be incorrect behaviour.

The Pencil tool does two things (compared to the paintbrush) that are independent of each other:

a) it thresholds the alpha channel of the brush (with a quite low threshold)

b) it snaps the pixels of the brush to the pixels of the image, so that no resampling occurs.

This is the *current* state of Gimp. And it has been like this for ages.

If we want to put that as an option into the paintbrush (and lose the pencil) then describing both of these behaviours combined as "anti-aliasing" is IMHO misleading and wrong.

Bye, Simon

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On June 22, 2016 1:07:35 PM GMT+02:00, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Ofnuts wrote:

the Pencil tool is a classic.

A little-used classic. It has its uses (pixel art), but on the whole

I have

much more often redirected pencil users to the brush that the

reverse.

...so that they would not be able to draw pixel-perfect rectangles and lines?

Because whenever people want that I tell them to use the Pencil tool.

... and then there is the people who simply don't have to ask, because they just know or try.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, C R wrote:

I still recommend adding the no anti-aliasing option to the brush though

That would involve somehow making GIMP to switch presets when swapping Wacom pens, for starters. As Liam pointed out before.

Alex

I still recommend adding the no anti-aliasing option to the brush though

That would involve somehow making GIMP to switch presets when swapping Wacom pens, for starters. As Liam pointed out before.

Why would pen presets be affected? Also, we could just have the checkbox switch to the pencil tool automatically on the back end, if everyone really likes how it presently works. :)
Obviously, switch back if unchecked.

-C

Alex
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Ah, I think I see.
The presets could be stored as they are now, and the tool simply switched with the checkmark.
We could also think about storing presets via brush instead of via tool. That would be much more useful, imho.

-C

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:44 PM, C R wrote:

I still recommend adding the no anti-aliasing option to the brush though

That would involve somehow making GIMP to switch presets when swapping Wacom pens, for starters. As Liam pointed out before.

Why would pen presets be affected? Also, we could just have the checkbox switch to the pencil tool automatically on the back end, if everyone really likes how it presently works. :)
Obviously, switch back if unchecked.

-C

Alex
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM, C R wrote:

I still recommend adding the no anti-aliasing option to the brush though

That would involve somehow making GIMP to switch presets when swapping Wacom pens, for starters. As Liam pointed out before.

Why would pen presets be affected?

Read the entire email thread again :-P

GIMP maps Wacom pens and pens' ends to different tools and remembers that mapping across sessions. Remove the Pencil tool, and you can't use one Wacom pen for Brush and another Wacom pen for Brush with AA off.

Alex

I did, I just misunderstood. :) I also replied about it too with a possibly better solution to brush presets problems.

-C

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM, C R wrote:

I still recommend adding the no anti-aliasing option to the brush

though

That would involve somehow making GIMP to switch presets when swapping Wacom pens, for starters. As Liam pointed out before.

Why would pen presets be affected?

Read the entire email thread again :-P

GIMP maps Wacom pens and pens' ends to different tools and remembers that mapping across sessions. Remove the Pencil tool, and you can't use one Wacom pen for Brush and another Wacom pen for Brush with AA off.

Alex
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

C R (cajhne@gmail.com) wrote:

Yes, it saves time if everyone reads the entire thread before commenting. I'm guilty of this too sometimes, though, so don't worry about it. :)

You know, I actually reread, and I find the thread highly confusing.

It starts with the hardness-parameter in the pencil tool, then goes on to how paintbrush is so similiar to the pencil tool, how the pencil tool can get removed, then pat getting confused that "hardness" would be the relevant property here (hint: it isn't), then brush presets and then Americo (wrongly) claiming, that (currently!) "anti-aliasing" is the unique difference between pencil and paintbrush. Which I disputed. Then you proposed that a "pixel brush" (whatever that means - I read that as "a 1x1 hard-edged brush) would be an adequate replacement for the pencil tool (And no, a brush alone can't solve this problem).

And now I am the one to blame for getting tetchy when all those weird terms are thrown around and everybody seems to talk about different things?

You are describing the behaviour as "snapping". It's not snapping, it's just not averaging.
The effect is the same, however. One click of the mouse, one pixel is coloured in. It does not matter what you call it.

Ah, "averaging". Another term that yet has not been used in this thread (I think).

What does it mean to "average" a pixel brush on a drawable?

And why is it not snapping when the pixel grids of the bŕush and the drawable keep getting aligned to pixel borders?

The options for drawing a line in a raster image are generally either 1.Anti-aliased
2.Nearest-neighbor (aliased, or "snapping" as you like to call it. :) ) Ah, I thought you understood. Please go back and read the entire email thread.

The fun fact is, that neither the paintbrush nor the pencil tool "draw lines" in the sense of a line in inkscape. They just repeatedly stamp the brush onto the canvas (or an intermediate canvas for non-incremental painting) at certain coordinates. "Anti-Aliasing" in the sense of "rendering a vector polygon onto pixels cairo-style" does not apply here.

So what are we talking about when we're talking about "anti-aliasing" for the paint brush? Just the resampling that happens when the pixel-grids of brush and the drawable don't align properly?

*It's not "rocket science" to do that either, or to understand that it's not possible to show what the brush tool would do with no anti-aliasing in GIMP.
I already know that the brush tool currently averages, this whole thread is about adding a feature to the brush tool to replace the pencil tool.*

What do you mean by "averaging"?

Bye, Simon

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

You know, I actually reread, and I find the thread highly confusing.

I'll try to help explain, if it's not going to upset you...

It starts with the hardness-parameter in the pencil tool, then goes on to how paintbrush is so similiar to the pencil tool, how the pencil tool can get removed, then pat getting confused that "hardness" would be the relevant property here (hint: it isn't)

I know, but from the user-perspective, it could be. However, I think it should be a checkbox instead, because it would be annoying to have to go to 99% to get an anti-aliased edge. :)

then brush presets and then

Americo (wrongly) claiming, that (currently!) "anti-aliasing" is the unique difference between pencil and paintbrush.

Maybe it's not, but you didn't explain your position very well, instead suggesting that I try to use the brush tool to get the effect (which doesn't work).
When I said it would not give the same results you thought it would, you got tetchy. Don't get "tetchy". This is after you seemed to understand what I was saying, which makes it even more confusing. Why get tetchy at all? :)

Which I disputed. Then you
proposed that a "pixel brush" (whatever that means - I read that as "a 1x1 hard-edged brush) would be an adequate replacement for the pencil tool (And no, a brush alone can't solve this problem).

Which I have explained 5 times now that this is only if it includes the (topic of this thread) proposed no anti-aliasing checkbox. Yet, I'm not getting tetchy back at you (except the once as an example of why we shouldn't). :)
In fact, I'll be happy to repeat that however many times you like, in as many ways as I can think of:

There should be no difference between a one-pixel brush (1x1, yes you are correct) and the current "snapping" behaviour. With other brushes, yes maybe.
But not with that 1px brush.

And now I am the one to blame for getting tetchy when all those weird

terms are thrown around and everybody seems to talk about different things?

When I get frustrated to the point of becoming irritable, I generally back off, and take a break to think about the problem a bit more. We all get tetchy. It's important not to stay tetchy though for the purpose of collaboration.

You are describing the behaviour as "snapping". It's not snapping, it's

just not averaging.
The effect is the same, however. One click of the mouse, one pixel is coloured in. It does not matter what you call it.

Ah, "averaging". Another term that yet has not been used in this thread (I think).

Okay, then "thresholding". I think that's one you mentioned, use that instead. :)

What does it mean to "average" a pixel brush on a drawable?

It could mean lots of things. For simplicity, let's take the Pencil tool as an example:

1. A fuzzy pencil brush could take the threshold you mentioned and apply a pixel-dithering algorithm across it to create a gradient, spanning that threshold simulates alpha across the threshold rather than actually using alpha.
2. A fuzzy pencil brush actually use alpha and use it across that threshold, since, as you mentioned it's not only using aliasing algorithm, it's applying a threshold to see which pixels are turned on or "snapped". 3. It could do a combination of 1 and 2.

The question applies to what people use the Pencil tool for. So far there's two things that I can see from the list:

1. for making pixel art 2. for making pixel-perfect rectangles and horizontal and vertical lines.

I'm willing to consider more, that's just what's been mentioned so far, and provides the context for which I'm basing possible ui changes (iff we decide it satisfies or improves the tools or the GIMP UI).

Yes, that's "if and only if". Not a typo. :)

And why is it not snapping when the pixel grids of the bŕush and the drawable keep getting aligned to pixel borders?

That's what anti-aliasing does... If you don't click directly in the center of a pixel, it will average 1 pixels worth of colour across four pixels, weighted by the click's proximity to the exact center of each of those four pixels. You turn anti-aliasing off, the whole pixel's worth of colour will be dumped into the pixel you clicked on. If you happen to click directly inbetween two or four pixels, nearest neighbor algorithm will pick one of them for you. It will not fill in two pixels or four pixels. If it did so, it would produce chunky lines which are more than one-px wide/thick.

The fun fact is, that neither the paintbrush nor the pencil tool "draw lines" in the sense of a line in inkscape. They just repeatedly stamp the brush onto the canvas (or an intermediate canvas for non-incremental painting) at certain coordinates. "Anti-Aliasing" in the sense of "rendering a vector polygon onto pixels cairo-style" does not apply here.

Another fun fact is that it doesn't matter. :) Correct if wrong, but no matter whether you click, click and drag, or click, then shift-click elsewhere to draw lines, GIMP has to decide where to put all the pixels. It either anti-aliases the results or it doesn't.

So what are we talking about when we're talking about "anti-aliasing" for the paint brush? Just the resampling that happens when the pixel-grids of brush and the drawable don't align properly?

Sure, if you like. Keep in mint though that anti-aliasing applies to image transformations and painting on the canvas as well. Here are a few excellent articles which covers the different kinds and applications:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing

-C

Bye,
Simon

--
simon@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On 06/22/2016 09:33 AM, C R wrote:

Which I have explained 5 times now that this is only if it includes the (topic of this thread) proposed no anti-aliasing checkbox.

On 06/15/2016 10:51 PM, Americo Gobbo wrote:

Hi all,
The Hardness parameter to Pencil Tool is not utilized, but is present in its Tool Options.

On 06/22/2016 08:24 AM, Simon Budig wrote:

You know, I actually reread, and I find the thread highly confusing.

It starts with the hardness-parameter in the pencil tool, then goes on to how paintbrush is so similiar to the pencil tool, how the pencil tool can get removed,

I think Americo's suggestion (original topic of thread) was that the Hardness slider be removed from the list of options for the Pencil, simply because this slider doesn't seem to affect the actual paint applied using the Pencil.

This suggestion seems like a good idea because it's confusing to users to have an available slider that doesn't actually do anything. Also the resulting list of tool options for the Pencil would be shorter, so there's less likelihood of the toolbox needing a slider to access all of the tool options menu, which is always a good thing.

The suggestion was subsequently made to remove the Pencil tool and add additional options to the Brush tool to allow to transform the Brush into the Pencil. Even if this were possible, doing this would:

* Make the current Brush options list longer, increasing the likelihood of the toolbox needing a slider to show all the Brush tool options.
* Increase the number of keyboard/click/etc actions that would be required for people who do use the Pencil for painting. * Increase the possible combinations of sliders for the Brush tool, which would make the Brush options more confusing, less easy to use.

Personally I've only been experimenting with digital painting over the last year or so, so take my input for what it's worth (complete amateur). But the Pencil tool seems pretty important because it creates hard edges on the brush stamps, which for various dynamics creates a different and often very pleasing result compared to the Brush tool (uses aren't limited to pixel art and drawing pixel-perfect boxes).

Possibly the people who want to remove the Pencil tool simply don't use this particular painting tool?

Best, Elle

Hi Elle. :) Thanks for your input...

I think Americo's suggestion (original topic of thread) was that the Hardness slider be removed from the list of options for the Pencil, simply because this slider doesn't seem to affect the actual paint applied using the Pencil.

Yes. I think we all agreed that was a good idea.

This suggestion seems like a good idea because it's confusing to users to

have an available slider that doesn't actually do anything. Also the resulting list of tool options for the Pencil would be shorter, so there's less likelihood of the toolbox needing a slider to access all of the tool options menu, which is always a good thing.

Yep. You got it right-on-the-money. :)

The suggestion was subsequently made to remove the Pencil tool and add

additional options to the Brush tool to allow to transform the Brush into the Pencil. Even if this were possible, doing this would:

* Make the current Brush options list longer, increasing the likelihood of the toolbox needing a slider to show all the Brush tool options.

*looks at gimp trunk* - Well, we seem to be well past the point where we're caring about too many options... I have 3 pages of scrolldown already. ;) We could decrease the spacing between the checkboxes and fit an extra checkbox in there if it's really on the edge of being too much, I think...

* Increase the number of keyboard/click/etc actions that would be required for people who do use the Pencil for painting.

Speaking as a digital painter (samples available upon request), I can tell you the Pencil tool does not replace a pencil brush. In fact, the pencil tool acts nothing like a pencil at all. :) Could re-name it the "pixel-tool".... but it absolutely sucks at being a pencil in just about every way it possibly could. ;)

* Increase the possible combinations of sliders for the Brush tool, which

would make the Brush options more confusing, less easy to use.

It's already really, really complicated. lol. However, take a look at the myPaint brushes. See how each one has an icon that shows what the brush does. It even shows whether it's supposed to be a pencil or not. Now imagine a brush preset with a pencil on it, with pixels coming out the tip in the way it does on canvas currently. That, imho is a far better solution than having a pencil tool that doesn't act like a pencil.

Personally I've only been experimenting with digital painting over the last

year or so, so take my input for what it's worth (complete amateur). But the Pencil tool seems pretty important because it creates hard edges on the brush stamps, which for various dynamics creates a different and often very pleasing result compared to the Brush tool (uses aren't limited to pixel art and drawing pixel-perfect boxes).

It actually destroys brushes, and it does not create hard edges so much as it creates jagged ones. In digital painting, jaggies are not your friend. The exception, of course is pixel art.

imho the 3 worst things you can have in a digital painting program (for digital painting) are:
1. Visibly replicated brush patterns (the exception is repeated stamp-like brushes like paw or footprints)
2. Bad anti-aliasing (or no anti-aliasing) 3. No tapering of line width based on acceleration or pressure. (The exception is round or square oil-paint brushes, and some markers)

The MyPaint brush system combats a lot of these issues, as do recent additions to GIMP's own brush options (all 5k of them. ;))

Your input is welcome. It's important to find a good solution that makes GIMP easier to use. Great ideas don't come from only seasoned digital painters, so thanks for all your input.

So thanks again for your contribution to the conversation. -C

Possibly the people who want to remove the Pencil tool simply don't use this particular painting tool?

I'm not willing to get rid of it unless we can put the functionality somewhere else. That said, I've only ever used it for pixel art.

Best,
Elle

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:55 PM, C R wrote:

Speaking as a digital painter (samples available upon request), I can tell you the Pencil tool does not replace a pencil brush. In fact, the pencil tool acts nothing like a pencil at all. :) Could re-name it the "pixel-tool".... but it absolutely sucks at being a pencil in just about every way it possibly could. ;)

Perhaps you could list specific characteristics of a Pencil tool that would not suck? :)

If the general idea is to make the Pencil tool (more) useful, pointing out existing deficiencies, then sketching a proposal would be a lot more constructive.

Your input is welcome. It's important to find a good solution that makes GIMP easier to use. Great ideas don't come from only seasoned digital painters, so thanks for all your input.

So thanks again for your contribution to the conversation.

I'm not willing to get rid of it unless we can put the functionality somewhere else.

This part of the conversation puzzles me. Elle is acknowledged contributor to GIMP as per AUTHORS, but you aren't. So how come _you_ welcome _her_ input? And who is that "we" that can put the functionality somewhere else? Am I missing a vital point here?

Alex

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

Speaking as a digital painter (samples available upon request), I can tell you the Pencil tool does not replace a pencil brush. In fact, the pencil tool acts nothing like a pencil at all. :) Could re-name it the "pixel-tool".... but it absolutely sucks at being a pencil in just about every way it possibly could. ;)

Perhaps you could list specific characteristics of a Pencil tool that would not suck? :)

If the general idea is to make the Pencil tool (more) useful, pointing out existing deficiencies, then sketching a proposal would be a lot more constructive.

I think I'll elaborate here.

If the existing Pencil tool does not meet your expectations, perhaps it would be wise to start from ground up.

Define/list characteristics of a pencil as opposed to a brush, from artistic point of view.

The next step is a functional spec. When we have that, it's possible to have a plan based on:

- which features (painting options) the tool is currently missing; - which features exist and are never used; - which features work differently than expected.

If there is no _design_, no _systematic approach_, then we probably can't improve anything.

Alex

On 06/22/2016 11:19 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:55 PM, C R wrote:

Speaking as a digital painter (samples available upon request), I can tell you the Pencil tool does not replace a pencil brush. In fact, the pencil tool acts nothing like a pencil at all.:) Could re-name it the "pixel-tool".... but it absolutely sucks at being a pencil in just about every way it possibly could.;)

Ah, the source of the confusion is here.

The Pencil, Brush, and Air Brush tools each do different things to whatever Brushtip+Dynamics they happen to be used with.

I was referring to the usefulness of the Pencil tool as doing "something different and sometimes very nice", compared to what the Brush tool does given the same "Brushtip+Dynamics" combination. I wasn't limiting the brushtip (correct terminology?) to the brushtips that intend to emulate pencil marks on paper.

I think you are saying that GIMP's Pencil tool is terrible at being digital replication of a physical pencil applied to actual paper? I rather suspect you might be right, that for many use cases the Brush tool is better for use as a "digital pencil".

If this is the case - if GIMP's Pencil tool is really bad for sketching or outlining or etc - maybe the Pencil tool simply needs a more descriptive name.

Best,
Elle

On 06/22/2016 12:16 PM, Elle Stone wrote:

I rather suspect you might be right, that for many use cases the Brush tool is better for use as a "digital pencil".

Athough experimenting, really the Pencil tool sometimes is nicer than the Brush tool for making sketch-type marks. Can you specify when/where/how/provide examples showing why the Pencil tool is so terrible?

Speaking as a digital painter (samples available upon request), I can

tell

you the Pencil tool does not replace a pencil brush. In fact, the pencil tool acts nothing like a pencil at all. :) Could re-name it the "pixel-tool".... but it absolutely sucks at being a pencil in just about every way it possibly could. ;)

Perhaps you could list specific characteristics of a Pencil tool that would not suck? :)

Sure, but we already have multiple pencil tools in the MyPaint brushes that would work great for that... anti-aliasing is essential for a realistic pencil mark, don't you agree? :)

If the general idea is to make the Pencil tool (more) useful, pointing

out existing deficiencies, then sketching a proposal would be a lot more constructive.

No, we're discussing the pencil tool as a digital painting tool. It's a bad pencil tool, but it's NOT a bad pixel tool. That's my point. :)

Your input is welcome. It's important to find a good solution that makes GIMP easier to use. Great ideas don't come from only seasoned digital painters, so thanks for all your input.

So thanks again for your contribution to the conversation.

I'm not willing to get rid of it unless we can put the functionality somewhere else.

This part of the conversation puzzles me. Elle is acknowledged contributor to GIMP as per AUTHORS, but you aren't.

That's true. I've never heard of AUTHORS though. Is that acronym on the website somewhere? :)

So how come _you_
welcome _her_ input?

Don't you? I definitely welcome her input, and I assume most people who have been following and commenting on these lists do as well.

You're trying to say since I'm not a developer, I can't tell Elle that I (and other designers and programmers, and other members of the community that I know) value her input?

Or are you saying that my compliment and reassurance is worth nothing because I'm not in the authors list? She expressed concern over her input in an area of knowledge that I have lots of experience in... should I not say that Elle's input is welcome?

When I say that it's welcome, that's because it is. That means that I'll read it carefully, process it and think of new solutions to help in making suggestions for GIMP, that can then be acted on (or not) by interested parties.

And who is that "we" that can put the functionality somewhere else? Am I missing a vital point here?

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is made of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list, no?

I can't change it myself, nor would I presume to act by myself even if I were able to. When I talk about things we are discussing related to GIMP, I use "we" with the qualifier "can" because we can do it, if we decide we want to. I'm not saying "we will", notice. Is that what you think? That I'm trying to represent everyone, and make decisions for them? If so, please understand, that's not at all what I mean.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:55 PM, C R wrote:

Speaking as a digital painter (samples available upon request), I can

tell

you the Pencil tool does not replace a pencil brush. In fact, the pencil tool acts nothing like a pencil at all. :) Could re-name it the "pixel-tool".... but it absolutely sucks at being a pencil in just about every way it possibly could. ;)

Perhaps you could list specific characteristics of a Pencil tool that would not suck? :)

If the general idea is to make the Pencil tool (more) useful, pointing out existing deficiencies, then sketching a proposal would be a lot more constructive.

Your input is welcome. It's important to find a good solution that makes GIMP easier to use. Great ideas don't come from only seasoned digital painters, so thanks for all your input.

So thanks again for your contribution to the conversation.

I'm not willing to get rid of it unless we can put the functionality somewhere else.

This part of the conversation puzzles me. Elle is acknowledged contributor to GIMP as per AUTHORS, but you aren't. So how come _you_ welcome _her_ input? And who is that "we" that can put the functionality somewhere else? Am I missing a vital point here?

Alex _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:

[...]

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is made of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list, no?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants, but this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly mitch. Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and more.

[...]

Tobias

I admit that I don't care at all who "we" includes. Substitute with "interested parties". I'm well aware that even great ideas might never get priority. There are no promises, no guarantees. Right now "we" includes just who is here. If we are not allowed to discuss what we, might do or might want to do in the future, then I've missed the point entirely. On 22 Jun 2016 8:31 pm, "Tobias Ellinghaus" wrote:

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:

[...]

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is

made

of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list,

no?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants, but this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly mitch.
Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and more.

[...]

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

As for the "we"
Le 22/06/2016 22:48, C R a crit :

I admit that I don't care at all who "we" includes. Substitute with "interested parties". I'm well aware that even great ideas might never get priority. There are no promises, no guarantees. Right now "we" includes just who is here. If we are not allowed to discuss what we, might do or might want to do in the future, then I've missed the point entirely.

Just a remark.

Maybe you imagine that speaking as "we" or "interested parties" gives more weight to your words.
But how do you know that all the 'I' we are dont disagree with what you think 'we' think or experience ? As a gimp user's, i havent granted anybody the right to speak on my behalf !

So, I appreciate when contibutors speak as 'I', not 'we', - all the more when you "dont care at all who 'we' is" -.

Beside being more honest, a clear "I" testimony will sound much stronger than a twisted "we".

Thanks in advance, :-)
JLuc

On 22 Jun 2016 8:31 pm, "Tobias Ellinghaus" wrote:

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:

[...]

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is

made

of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list,

no?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants, but this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly mitch.
Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and more.

[...]

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

So when I say "we can do this", I should say "I can do this"? I do wonder if people actually read what I post. :)

-C

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, JLuc wrote:

As for the "we"
Le 22/06/2016 22:48, C R a écrit :

I admit that I don't care at all who "we" includes. Substitute with "interested parties". I'm well aware that even great ideas might never get priority. There are no promises, no guarantees. Right now "we" includes just who is here. If we are not allowed to discuss what we, might do or might want to do in the future, then I've missed the point entirely.

Just a remark.

Maybe you imagine that speaking as "we" or "interested parties" gives more weight to your words.
But how do you know that all the 'I' we are dont disagree with what you think 'we' think or experience ? As a gimp user's, i havent granted anybody the right to speak on my behalf !

So, I appreciate when contibutors speak as 'I', not 'we', - all the more when you "dont care at all who 'we' is" -.

Beside being more honest, a clear "I" testimony will sound much stronger than a twisted "we".

Thanks in advance, :-)
JLuc

On 22 Jun 2016 8:31 pm, "Tobias Ellinghaus" wrote:

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:

[...]

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is

made

of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if
we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list,

no?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants, but
this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly mitch.
Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and more.

[...]

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________

gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

In the interests of moving on with more important things than the symantics of "we", I can attempt to extract the team aspect from my verbiage.

I can say for example: "It can be done this way." or "It might be decided that."
It sounds cold, and impersonal to me, but if it allows us to move forward with discussing GIMP UI and features, then I'll do my best.

-C

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:06 AM, C R wrote:

So when I say "we can do this", I should say "I can do this"? I do wonder if people actually read what I post. :)

-C

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, JLuc wrote:

As for the "we"
Le 22/06/2016 22:48, C R a écrit :

I admit that I don't care at all who "we" includes. Substitute with "interested parties". I'm well aware that even great ideas might never get
priority. There are no promises, no guarantees. Right now "we" includes just who is here. If we are not allowed to discuss what we, might do or might want to do in the future, then I've missed the point entirely.

Just a remark.

Maybe you imagine that speaking as "we" or "interested parties" gives more weight to your words.
But how do you know that all the 'I' we are dont disagree with what you think 'we' think or experience ? As a gimp user's, i havent granted anybody the right to speak on my behalf !

So, I appreciate when contibutors speak as 'I', not 'we', - all the more when you "dont care at all who 'we' is" -.

Beside being more honest, a clear "I" testimony will sound much stronger than a twisted "we".

Thanks in advance, :-)
JLuc

On 22 Jun 2016 8:31 pm, "Tobias Ellinghaus" wrote:

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:

[...]

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is

made

of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if
we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list,

no?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants, but
this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly mitch.
Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and more.

[...]

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________

gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

To recap:

1. I think the pencil tool should be renamed "Pixel Tool" if it's to stay in the Tool box.
Reasons:
A. Jaggies don't make for realistic simulated pencil marks B. There are better pencil-simulation tools in the Brush palate

2. I think Brush settings should be brush specific instead of tool specific, and the brush should remember the modifications made to it instead of the tool storing that information. Reason: I can't think of a situation where you would want to use the current Pencil tool, and Brush tool in tandem. If we're keeping it in the Tool Box just to remember values between brushes, I'm not sure who it's benefiting. :)

3. The Pencil Tool could be gotten rid of entirely if #2 is done, and an anti-aliasing checkbox is added to the brush options. Reasons:
A. It extends any benefits of aliased lines and makes it available as a mixing item to make brushes more varied and flexible. B. It could be represented better and more visibly as a MyPaint brush, rather than one more thing to clutter the tool box and accidentally click instead of the brush tool. :)
C. It may improve first impressions of GIMP, because all modern digital illustration programs have pencil simulators, and the natural thing to do is click on the first pencil icon you see and start sketching. The user is currently greeted with jaggy pixel lines that you can't make look like real pencil marks no matter how many options you tweak. :)

4. The Pencil tool, renamed Pixel Tool, could be improved upon by keeping the hardness value slider, and dithering the resulting gradient on soft brushes. This would be an excellent improvement, as it would make things like pixel shading that much easier while preserving the retro. :)

I think that's it so far. :)

Thoughts?

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:20 AM, C R wrote:

In the interests of moving on with more important things than the symantics of "we", I can attempt to extract the team aspect from my verbiage.

I can say for example: "It can be done this way." or "It might be decided that."
It sounds cold, and impersonal to me, but if it allows us to move forward with discussing GIMP UI and features, then I'll do my best.

-C

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:06 AM, C R wrote:

So when I say "we can do this", I should say "I can do this"? I do wonder if people actually read what I post. :)

-C

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, JLuc wrote:

As for the "we"
Le 22/06/2016 22:48, C R a écrit :

I admit that I don't care at all who "we" includes. Substitute with "interested parties". I'm well aware that even great ideas might never get
priority. There are no promises, no guarantees. Right now "we" includes just who is here. If we are not allowed to discuss what we, might do or might want to do in the future, then I've missed the point entirely.

Just a remark.

Maybe you imagine that speaking as "we" or "interested parties" gives more weight to your words.
But how do you know that all the 'I' we are dont disagree with what you think 'we' think or experience ? As a gimp user's, i havent granted anybody the right to speak on my behalf !

So, I appreciate when contibutors speak as 'I', not 'we', - all the more when you "dont care at all who 'we' is" -.

Beside being more honest, a clear "I" testimony will sound much stronger than a twisted "we".

Thanks in advance, :-)
JLuc

On 22 Jun 2016 8:31 pm, "Tobias Ellinghaus" wrote:

On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:

[...]

Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is

made

of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it. So if
we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing list,

no?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants, but
this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly mitch.
Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and more.

[...]

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________

gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Thursday 23 June 2016 07:06:04 C R wrote:

So when I say "we can do this", I should say "I can do this"? I do wonder if people actually read what I post. :)

Maybe you should write "I wish that someone else does".

-C

Tobias

[...]

On Thursday 23 June 2016 08:43:55 C R wrote:

To recap:

1. I think the pencil tool should be renamed "Pixel Tool" if it's to stay in the Tool box.
Reasons:
A. Jaggies don't make for realistic simulated pencil marks B. There are better pencil-simulation tools in the Brush palate

I am not sure that renaming a tool that old would be a good idea. People know what to look for, and at the end of the day it's just a name. No one expects it to be a realistic pencil. At least no one accustomed to the tool (see Product Vision for the intended target audience).

2. I think Brush settings should be brush specific instead of tool specific, and the brush should remember the modifications made to it instead of the tool storing that information. Reason: I can't think of a situation where you would want to use the current Pencil tool, and Brush tool in tandem. If we're keeping it in the Tool Box just to remember values between brushes, I'm not sure who it's benefiting. :)

I am using the two in parallel all the time when drawing masks. The brush for the edges and the pencil to fill in the bulk. Reason: I want to be sure that anti aliasing doesn't leave half transparent areas. So I have my left hand on the keyboard to hit 'x', 'n' and 'b' and the right hand on mouse/stylus.

3. The Pencil Tool could be gotten rid of entirely if #2 is done, and an anti-aliasing checkbox is added to the brush options.

As Simon already mentioned, there are two levels of anti aliasing/blurring/thresholding/whatever we want to call it. Would that switch turn off both?

[...]

Tobias

Maybe you should write "I wish that someone else does".

When discussing possibilities, it is less important what I wish. My aim is to provide good useful input, towards a consensus. -C

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:

On Thursday 23 June 2016 08:43:55 C R wrote:

To recap:

1. I think the pencil tool should be renamed "Pixel Tool" if it's to stay in the Tool box.
Reasons:
A. Jaggies don't make for realistic simulated pencil marks B. There are better pencil-simulation tools in the Brush palate

I am not sure that renaming a tool that old would be a good idea. People know
what to look for, and at the end of the day it's just a name. No one expects
it to be a realistic pencil. At least no one accustomed to the tool (see Product Vision for the intended target audience).

2. I think Brush settings should be brush specific instead of tool specific, and the brush should remember the modifications made to it instead of the tool storing that information. Reason: I can't think of a situation where you would want to use the current Pencil tool, and Brush tool in tandem. If we're keeping it in the Tool Box just to remember values between brushes, I'm not sure who it's benefiting. :)

I am using the two in parallel all the time when drawing masks. The brush for
the edges and the pencil to fill in the bulk. Reason: I want to be sure that
anti aliasing doesn't leave half transparent areas. So I have my left hand on
the keyboard to hit 'x', 'n' and 'b' and the right hand on mouse/stylus.

3. The Pencil Tool could be gotten rid of entirely if #2 is done, and an anti-aliasing checkbox is added to the brush options.

As Simon already mentioned, there are two levels of anti aliasing/blurring/thresholding/whatever we want to call it. Would that switch
turn off both?

[...]

Tobias _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

1. I think the pencil tool should be renamed "Pixel Tool" if it's to stay

in the Tool box.
Reasons:
A. Jaggies don't make for realistic simulated pencil marks B. There are better pencil-simulation tools in the Brush palate

I am not sure that renaming a tool that old would be a good idea. People know
what to look for, and at the end of the day it's just a name. No one expects
it to be a realistic pencil. At least no one accustomed to the tool (see Product Vision for the intended target audience).

I don't see anything in the Product Vision that says tools need to stay the way they are because that's the way they've been. Maybe a link to the specific area of the document would help me understand.

I am using the two in parallel all the time when drawing masks. The brush for
the edges and the pencil to fill in the bulk. Reason: I want to be sure that
anti aliasing doesn't leave half transparent areas. So I have my left hand on
the keyboard to hit 'x', 'n' and 'b' and the right hand on mouse/stylus.

We (you and I), make masks the same way. I also use "d" to reset the true black and true white for foreground and background. 'b' is the paths tool... did you mean 'p'? If you are painting a mask inside an area, using the Pencil tool runs the risk of producing jaggies on your nice anti-aliased edges, which is why I never use it for that.

Anyway, the effect would be the same if you switched from brush to brush using just the paint tool, and the modifications I've mentioned.

3. The Pencil Tool could be gotten rid of entirely if #2 is done, and an

anti-aliasing checkbox is added to the brush options.

As Simon already mentioned, there are two levels of anti aliasing/blurring/thresholding/whatever we want to call it. Would that switch
turn off both?

Yes. It would "snap" as Simon would say. :)

see my #4 for improving how thresholding with a gradient across a fussy edged brush could be improved.
100% hardness would produce results more or less identical to what you get with the Pencil tool now.

[...]

Tobias
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list