Brush spacing / rotate / scale

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Thursday 15 November 2007, Moritz Moeller wrote:

> I personally don't understand why the distinction between vector and
> bitmap apps still exists at all in 2007 (insert 1997 here, if you like).

That's when Krita was started, or just about.... The reasons are pretty clear 
to me: it's easier to implement for amateurs like me (I can do reasonably 
useful work on Krita, I wouldn't be able to do anything on an app like 
describe), there are existing examples of such applications that have wide 
currency and the users are asking for them.

<...>

> A stroke would then just be a node. Or if several strokes were to be
> painted immediately after each other, they could be contained in a multi
> stroke node (see e.g. Apple's Shake).

I don't think that runs on my ancient G3 powerbook...

> Photoshop, Gimp etc. just suck balls the size of planets as far this goes.

So does Krita...

> There was a vector app on SGIs that had insanely detailed parametric
> brushes (all vectors). Some of them had infinite level of detail.
> Everything was kept vectors until it got rendered into a bitmap at some
> point. You could zoom into brushes and they would have more and more
> detail. I have to dig the web a little bit, maybe I can recall its name and
> find some screenshots. This was in 1997. 10 years later I haven't seen
> anything like it... :)

The thing is... Why? There must be a reason that concept failed. I have read 
in some old Computer Arts magazines Thomas Zander gave me about an 
application that freely mixed any kind of pixel-producing art, from raster to 
vector to video, around 1995. The reviewers complained that it was incredibly 
slow, buggy as hell and that the user interface was very confusing. But that 
app still didn't have the kind of node-brushes you describe.


-- 
Boudewijn Rempt 
http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi