<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Cyrille Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cberger@cberger.net">cberger@cberger.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Monday 17 May 2010, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:<br>
> On Sunday 16 May 2010, <a href="mailto:LukasT.dev@gmail.com">LukasT.dev@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
> > What is switching to grayscale? Something like 16-bit depth? Or instead<br>
> > of QImage RGB use Grayscale?<br>
><br>
> No, right now if you edit a mask you do it using the alpha channel. Users<br>
> expect to use grayscale for that -- this is a refactor that has been<br>
> discussed before.<br>
</div>Did we took a decision, I think we sort of say that we would talk about it at<br>
the meeting... and did not. Because if we follow people expectation, we will<br>
just make a clone of photoshop ;p (I wonder what the gimp people are going to<br>
do in gegl on that aspect)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I think it makes no sense to not do it that way because Photoshop does it. I think that the grayscale version has some advantages over the current solution, e.g. gradients work better. Both version have their problem. I'm open for suggestions, but I think there is no ideal solution.<br>
</div></div>