Decompose
This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.
This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.
| Decompose | Richard | 13 Nov 03:15 |
| Decompose | Carol Spears | 13 Nov 03:58 |
| Decompose | Pasi Savolainen | 13 Nov 11:21 |
| Decompose | Richard | 21 Nov 16:54 |
| Decompose | Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris | 21 Nov 17:38 |
| Decompose | Sven Neumann | 21 Nov 18:45 |
| 200411212334.51066.gwidion@... | 07 Oct 20:16 | |
| Decompose | Richard | 22 Nov 02:54 |
| Decompose | Sven Neumann | 22 Nov 13:18 |
| Decompose | Patrick Shanahan | 22 Nov 14:33 |
| Decompose | Richard | 22 Nov 15:46 |
| Decompose | Sven Neumann | 22 Nov 22:58 |
Decompose
Okay, Thanks to all.
Filters->Colors->Decompose Found LAB, and did the delete A&B to get the Light Channel,
Q. Since the original image was a Color / Infrared shot (digital) would the best was to get all the detail of Gray/IR is using Decompose?
After applying auto levels, you have gray scale.
My understanding is that going to Gray scale by itself, you lose 16bit to 8bit. So, Decompose would be better?
Q. Next after having the L Layer, what is the best way off adjusting Shadows and Lights and Mid tones? So that be done before Decompose?
Thanks in Advance Richard
Gimp 2.0.5
Decompose
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:15:33PM -0500, Richard wrote:
Okay, Thanks to all.
Filters->Colors->Decompose Found LAB, and did the delete A&B to get the Light Channel,
Q. Since the original image was a Color / Infrared shot (digital) would the best was to get all the detail of Gray/IR is using Decompose?
After applying auto levels, you have gray scale.
that should not have happened. auto levels on a color image does not yeild a grayscale unless you started with one. i am fairly sure about this.
My understanding is that going to Gray scale by itself, you lose 16bit to 8bit.
So, Decompose would be better?
decompose gives a grayscale, it just gives a smarter one than desaturate or changing the mode alone.
carol gimp-1.0
Decompose
* Carol Spears :
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:15:33PM -0500, Richard wrote:
Okay, Thanks to all.
Filters->Colors->Decompose Found LAB, and did the delete A&B to get the Light Channel,
Q. Since the original image was a Color / Infrared shot (digital) would the best was to get all the detail of Gray/IR is using Decompose?
After applying auto levels, you have gray scale.
that should not have happened. auto levels on a color image does not yeild a grayscale unless you started with one. i am fairly sure about this.
IR images may seem colored, but it's generally just colorcast, so autoleveling will remove that cast and it becomes gray.
My understanding is that going to Gray scale by itself, you lose 16bit to 8bit.
So, Decompose would be better?
GIMP-2 doesn't support 16bit in any other way but reading 16bit depth images (converted to 8bit right at the spot).
decompose gives a grayscale, it just gives a smarter one than desaturate or changing the mode alone.
Filters->Colors->Channel Mixer is generally best way to convert Color->Monochrome. AFAIR there's even some channel percentages floating on the net that're supposed to give you look of some certain brand of film.
Decompose
I notice when doing a decompose,
that you get 3 channels A&B&L...
However, there a issue.
First if the image is 300dpi x 300dpi
then you delete A&B channel have only the L
channel, you will notice that the image,
is no longer 300dpi x 300dpi but,
72x72 dpi.
is my understanding correct on this? Richard
( Just trying to max out a color image into Grayscale.) if this being the case, then decompose is not the way to go, getting the most out of grayscale.
Regards- Richard
:-)
Decompose
On Sunday 21 November 2004 13:54, Richard wrote:
I notice when doing a decompose,
that you get 3 channels A&B&L...
However, there a issue.First if the image is 300dpi x 300dpi then you delete A&B channel have only the L channel, you will notice that the image, is no longer 300dpi x 300dpi but,
72x72 dpi.
Hi.
The pixel size of the image doesn't change - that means you still have
the "L" value for each pixel in your original image.
You can just change the DPI settings (in gimp 2.2 pre2 it is done in
the new "print size" dialog.
I do agree that this behavior is buggy though.
is my understanding correct on this? Richard
( Just trying to max out a color image into Grayscale.) if this being the case, then decompose is not the way to go, getting the most out of grayscale.
Regards- Richard
:-)
Decompose
Hi,
"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" writes:
The pixel size of the image doesn't change - that means you still have the "L" value for each pixel in your original image. You can just change the DPI settings (in gimp 2.2 pre2 it is done in the new "print size" dialog.
I do agree that this behavior is buggy though.
I've fixed that in CVS now. But as you explained already, it doesn't really matter.
Sven
Decompose
Boy, I wish I could program, or compile my own code. I'm glad the bug was found, and now can be fix.
I'll sit and wait for a new 2.2 Mac OS X version ( hopeful before x-mas) to download it.
Thank You.
Richard
Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:
On Sunday 21 November 2004 13:54, Richard wrote:
I notice when doing a decompose,
that you get 3 channels A&B&L...
However, there a issue.First if the image is 300dpi x 300dpi then you delete A&B channel have only the L channel, you will notice that the image, is no longer 300dpi x 300dpi but,
72x72 dpi.is my understanding correct on this? Richard
Hi ...
I had made a correction for this - if you are the one compiling your own gimp you might just add the fix from here:http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159010
( Just trying to max out a color image into Grayscale.) if this being the case, then decompose is not the way to go, getting the most out of grayscale.
Regards- Richard
:-)
Decompose
Hi,
Richard writes:
Boy, I wish I could program, or compile my own code. I'm glad the bug was found, and now can be fix.
I'll sit and wait for a new 2.2 Mac OS X version ( hopeful before x-mas) to download it.
Instead of sitting there and waiting you could compile a 2.2 version and make it available to others. Sitting and waiting is not how Free Software works.
Sven
Decompose
* Sven Neumann [11-22-04 07:21]:
Instead of sitting there and waiting you could compile a 2.2 version and make it available to others. Sitting and waiting is not how Free Software works.
He *said* that he wished he could but cannot because he does not know how. Many of the new users of gimp/linux are coming from the windoz platform and have no knowledge of *compiling* a program, just installing where and how Gates/Baldie have decided should happen.
Decompose
Hi Sven,
Please read again,
I WISH, I could, have try to do this before in the past,
with 10.1 and 10.2 ( Mac OS X ) never could get a app, to compile,
had dozen of error message, and dependences problems,
and the people whom are on the Xcode list ( Apple's Developer
Application Program)
which I do have installed, Like to FLAME people, and give no advice to
newbies.
Regards-
Richard
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Richard writes:
Boy, I wish I could program, or compile my own code. I'm glad the bug was found, and now can be fix.
I'll sit and wait for a new 2.2 Mac OS X version ( hopeful before x-mas) to download it.
Instead of sitting there and waiting you could compile a 2.2 version and make it available to others. Sitting and waiting is not how Free Software works.
Sven
Decompose
Hi,
Richard writes:
Please read again,
I WISH, I could, have try to do this before in the past, with 10.1 and 10.2 ( Mac OS X ) never could get a app, to compile, had dozen of error message, and dependences problems
Well, I was trying to encourage you to try again. It isn't really rocket science to compile GIMP on Mac OS X and we could give you a helping hand.
Sven
