The future of selections and masks in Krita

[Casper Boemann]

On Monday 31 July 2006 23:53, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > Another theory is just fine, as long as the usecases are satisfied.
>
> No, not quite. I saw one use case, for one user; and that one did not seem
> applicable to the situation. If anything, trying to combine the best parts
> of three images seems to need three selections, and no global selection. I
> did not see much in the way of convincing reasoning from that use-case to
> the conclusions.
>
> The use-case itself, combining different exposures in one image, btw, is
> something that's most often done through an automated algorithm, like
> Photoshop's merge-to-hdr:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml, not by manual
> blending.
funny how we then get users comming in to #koffice asking for such  
functionallity

> > Ok, I'll ask the guys to explain that to me tomorrow.
>
> I'll give it a try now because I notice the writeup in the todo is kind of
> very summarized. Although there should be plenty about it in the mail
> archives -- but that's hard to search nowadays.
>
> The basic thing is that I don't see the difference between a selection and
> a mask; a mask is an adjustmentlayer with an selection associated.
> (Remember that I want adjustmentlayers not just to be filters in between
> layer stacks, but also one level lower, i.e, adjustmentlayers that work on
> just one layer.
>
> Even more basic is that I really want to obliterate the absolute
> distinction between a selection and a layer: a selection is just a
> sub-layer to a paint layer that has a certain meaning to the paint and fill
> operations applied to that layer. I want to show selections in the
> hierarchy of the layerbox as independent rows.
>
> You should be able to move & copy selections from layer to another: to move
> the selection in the x,y direction using the move tool if the selection is
> highlighted in the layer box, and move the pixels that are selected in the
> x,y direction, if the layer is current in the layer box. Same with painting
> and everything.
>
> I have this gut feeling that handling selections this way will be way
> clearer to users than anything that exists right now. I may be wrong, of
> course, but I want to at least have given it a try.
In all this you could just as well call them masks. I don't really see you 
selecting anything with them oh and if you have more than one adjustment 
(which in your mind would include a selection) then what does cut and copy 
work on.

Sorry but this whole multiple selection that are part of the document doesn't 
make sense to me.

And how do you then select a part of a selection???  by another selection :) 
and again to where does this cut and copy refer ?

Sorry I think this idea is so radical that it falls apart trying to integrate 
it with a normal user interface.

> > So, you are suggesting that a selection has an effect on the transparancy
> > of the layer?
>
> If you use the selection to fill the alpha channel of the associated layer
> with a certain opacity, yes, of course. Or if you use the selection to
> create an adjustment layer (we should have a filter that changes just the
> alpha channel, which we don't yet), an adjustment layer that does not act
> as a filter in between layers, but which is associated with a single layer
> just like the wet "mask" is associated with a single layer, then yes, the
> layer selection will have an influence on the transparency (or redness etc)
> of that layer.
again you are confusing terms. you are not selecting anything (I hope) in the 
sense that it is a target for edit menu commands.

> If you've got the elk already selected, you already got the selection based
> on the transparency ready for you. If not, well, it's not easy to create an
> explicit way of selecting all non-transparent bits of a layer. So that
> means you get the selection done, and then, with my design, you simply copy
> the selection over to your new layer, where you can use it to fill elks to
> your hearts content -- even moving the selection to place it differently in
> the x,y coordinate.
>
> And if, in-between, you want to brush up the background, you can simply
> select that layer, create a selection there, mess with the colors and go
> back to your multiple elk-layer and discover that your precious elk
> selection is not gone: no need to recreate it.
There is nothing here that (calling them) masks wont do just as well without 
confuding the user.

However I do agree that having a global selection and current layer being 
independent is confusing too.

The correct way is offcourse a single global selection tied to a specific 
layer and when clicking on a layer that becomes the selection. Naturally 
explaining that when you don't have a "selection" the entire layer is 
writable, because you have exactly selected  the layer and thereby all of 
it's pixels. 

That is the self-consistent way to do it - however some might argue that it 
will make life even more cumbersome (though perhapbs we should indeed take 
this idea and think of adding ways on top to make is usable)

-- 
best regards / venlig hilsen
Casper Boemann