Hi,

Sven Neumann wrote:

I'd like to get some feedback on the following plan for the Blur plug-in
(details are in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142318):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog.

Sounds OK to me.

Cheers,
Dave.

Why not to simply add new plugin with 3x3 convolution and call it Blur? And leave old one with new name "Random blur".

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to get some feedback on the following plan for the Blur plug-in
(details are in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142318):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog. Filters->Blur->Blur would then be a simple blur with a 3x3 convolution kernel. It would be fast and easy to use but of course we it would be less powerful. So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1149.52 +0200):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog. Filters->Blur->Blur would then be a simple blur with a 3x3 convolution kernel. It would be fast and easy to use but of course we it would be less powerful. So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

Why not just ditch it completly then? If it just a 3x3 convolution that you have to manually repeat, and there are already other filters and scripts that do the same. The point of repeat is not having to rerun manually to get a "bigger radius" blur.

Someone was doing a version that used another channel to control the repeats, which is a nice improvement. If that is accepted as improvement it should stay, otherwise I see no reason to keep it along the generic matrix one and its presets.

GSR

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1649.35 +0200):

Sorry, but what other scripts or plug-ins are you referring to? IMO it would be a good thing to have a simple and fast plug-in that does the job w/o a dialog and I fail to see what other plug-in would provide this functionality.

Convolution matrix, and there are scripts floating around that give matrix presets.

GSR

GSR - FR wrote:

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1649.35 +0200):

Sorry, but what other scripts or plug-ins are you referring to? IMO it would be a good thing to have a simple and fast plug-in that does the job w/o a dialog and I fail to see what other plug-in would provide this functionality.

Convolution matrix, and there are scripts floating around that give matrix presets.

GSR

calling the convolution matrix plug in and scripts to preset it a simple replacement ?
Please rephrase that to a powerful replacement that can be used by the more then average(new) gimp user.
Would this mean having a script-fu menu entry fill convolution matrix for : blur/sharpen/edge detect etc.

1. simple and fast blur operation as it is known in other graphical programs will help new gimp users to get arround. 2. when using the randomize option the preview makes no "real" sense since by nature you'll never get twice the same result. 3.Instead of executing the blur option multiple times one could use a bigger kernel (5x5, 7x7) as often used. This would suggest a dialog box. 4. If a bigger blur is needed use the gausian blur instead of repeating. 5.Writing a script to repeat the plugin multiple times would be a better option then calling a script to fill the convolution matrix. at least the script could be used to repeat all plug-ins. Or why not add a menu option repeat last plugin n times.

Geert

geert.jordaens@pandora.be (2004-06-07 at 1759.17 +0200):

calling the convolution matrix plug in and scripts to preset it a simple replacement ?

Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix?

Please rephrase that to a powerful replacement that can be used by the more then average(new) gimp user.
Would this mean having a script-fu menu entry fill convolution matrix for : blur/sharpen/edge detect etc.

Those already exists. The ones I got have some extra controls, but nothing disallows making no dialog versions.

2. when using the randomize option the preview makes no "real" sense since by nature you'll never get twice the same result.

Depends how the code is done, using pseudo random and taking into account 2d coord it should provide repeatable results.

4. If a bigger blur is needed use the gausian blur instead of repeating.

They are different things, though, box vs guassian.

GSR

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, GSR - FR wrote:

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:10:30 +0200 From: GSR - FR
To: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu, gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: [Gimp-user] Re: Blur plug-in

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1149.52 +0200):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog. Filters->Blur->Blur would then be a simple blur with a 3x3 convolution kernel. It would be fast and easy to use but of course we it would be less powerful. So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

Why not just ditch it completly then? If it just a 3x3 convolution that you have to manually repeat, and there are already other filters and scripts that do the same. The point of repeat is not having to rerun manually to get a "bigger radius" blur.

If there was a more convenient way to save a 3x3 convolution matrix than having to write a script-fu script around the convulotion matrix plugin then there would not be any reason to keep the blur plugin but at the moment manually typing in a convulation matrix gets really annoying really fast.

- Alan

I use this plug-in, it can give different results than other blur plug-ins,
and these results sometimes seem to fit more than RLE and IIR.

"Sven Neumann" writes:

>Would you mind to tell us what parameters you are using the plug-in >with?

Different actually, most often random: 0 or randomize, randomization:100% repeat:1 (sometimes more repeats). I don't really understand its options but I like the effect. And it seems to be faster than others. Maybe it does the same (as which one?), and it's a placebo effect, but after some trial, I prefer using it.