<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Cyrille Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cberger@cberger.net">cberger@cberger.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Saturday 26 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:<br>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Cyrille Berger <<a href="mailto:cberger@cberger.net">cberger@cberger.net</a>>wrote:<br>
> > On Saturday 26 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:<br>
> > > > for a,b,c) it doesn't work perfectly, but it's not that broken.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > But still not usable =(<br>
> ><br>
> > Well now, I have fix all the issue with the alpha colorspace (I have<br>
> > added alpha darken). All it remains to do is to make mask support the<br>
> > indirect painting interface.<br>
><br>
> Well, no. You've not fixed that. It's just a workaround.<br>
><br>
> Testcase:<br>
> 1) Create any mask (e.g. transparency mask)<br>
> 2) Paint something on a mask to get transparency<br>
><br>
> Let's imagine after these steps you decide to make some rect visible again,<br>
> what are you going to do? In a good editor you just select this rect with<br>
> selection and fill it with a white color (or any semi-transparent one(!)).<br>
</div>Why white ?<br></blockquote><div><br>I can't remember which color is used usually (e.g. in a "well known graphical editor"). I guess, when we paint with white paint the image becomes opaque, when we paint with black paint - becomes transparent, with gray color - becomes semi-transparent.<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> You CAN'T do the same with krita, as far as i can see. Yes, you can use<br>
> pixel eraser tool (that is not so obvious, btw), but what if your rect is<br>
> 1024x1024 size?<br>
</div>No, I would say, there is a bug in the fill tool that needs to be fixed.<br></blockquote><div><br>Do you suggest adding a transparent pattern for a paint bucket? Why don't you suggest adding an "alpha channel selector" to a usual color selection pallet?<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Are you gonna fill it with a small brush?<br>
</div>you can use bigger brush....<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> That's why i repeat again, we must use grayscale-like system for<br>
> transparency masks. Current discreet selection system is a dirty hack.<br>
<br>
</div>Sorry, but I feel it's the other way around... How are you supposed to know<br>
that white correspond to transparent ? (or is it black ?) While choosing<br>
transparency for setting the transparency sounds more logical to me.<br></blockquote><div><br>Repeat.<br>Transparency is represented by a grayscale<b>-like</b> CS. You can name it as you wish! If you name it "transparency", then "black"(0) is opaque, "white"(255) is transparent. <br>
The think i'm trying to say all this time - <b>"transparency" value of the brush and "alpha" channel of the brush should be two different channels</b>. This allows selection of the "transparency" value by the user. More than that it allows "fading" of the brush.<br>
<br>And there is no difference how are you going to represent this "transparency" channel: black/white or even pink/purple =)<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> > It doesn't use the gray color, but this is by design, it means you have<br>
> > to use<br>
> > the opacity setting (this is something we have been debating in krita for<br>
> > years, wether opacity belongs in the tool or in the color selector).<br>
> > Gradient work if you choose a gradient with transparency, in a future<br>
> > release,<br>
> > it could be worth investigating adding an option to the gradient tool for<br>
> > working on the transparent channel instead of colors (I think it might<br>
> > have a<br>
> > broader use).<br>
><br>
> Do not create additional abstraction for a user. He knows what the color<br>
> is, this is RGB values. The user DOES NOT know anything about our INTERNAL<br>
> representation of the color as rgbA. RGB != RGBA. He knows (or should<br>
> know) _nothing_ about alpha channel of the brush or of the layer. It's<br>
> editor's job to think about alpha, not user's one!<br>
<br>
</div>Hum ? alpha I would agree, but transparency... I sure hope the user would know<br>
about transparency/opacity otherwise why would he want to use a transparency<br>
mask in the first place ?<br></blockquote><div><br>We don't understand each other. <br>Of course the user may know anything he wish, alpha-masks or even kernel developing. I mean that we must not reveal to him our internals - that is "alpha channel of the brush".<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> PS:<br>
> Sorry for brute words. I don't know how to explain it. I repeat it again<br>
> and again...<br>
> We have a weird selections system and you don't even want to make it<br>
> better.<br>
</div>Sure I want, I just disagree with the assumption that color has a meaning for<br>
selection.<br></blockquote><div><br>Color is just a representation. We just need a separate channel for "transparency"/"opacity" value. And there is not difference how we will represent it.<br><br>PS:<br>
You can try to open a PS and take a look how painting on masks works there. Try to change current color and you'll see the difference.<br> <br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>Dmitry Kazakov<br>