Brush spacing / rotate / scale

Matthew Woehlke mw_triad at
Thu Nov 15 18:29:10 CET 2007

Valerie VK wrote:
>> For elliptical brushes, I don't think your illustration works well. 
>> Usually you have three handles; angle, major radius, minor radius. I've 
>> never heard of skewing an elliptical brush; I'm not convinced even 
>> bitmap brushes (hmm, svg brushes? ;-) ) would need to be skewed.
> To be honest I don't use skewing much either... Angle, Major radius 
> and Minor radius angle are most appropriate, and I'd modified the 
> second mock-up accordingly. Thanks! :)
> (I couldn't change the box type though, I'm not quite sure how the 
> handles you speak of are supposed to look like, but I'm sure the rest 
> of you do.)

I was thinking that you would have the handles actually *on* the brush, 
but as you note in your second mockup, probably it is better to have the 
handles away from the brush. In that case, it just means that the box is 
the smallest possible containing box, i.e. sides parallel to the major 
and minor radii of the ellipse. (Or, more simply, the box is rotated by 
the same amount as the brush. In fact, this would be a good idea for 
rectangle brushes also...)

On that note, how come we even have separate rectangular and elliptical 
brushes, and not just rounded rectangles (where 100% round makes it an 

>> Huh, for you maybe, I personally like having them (maybe just 
>> because I am bothered by drawing with a 5.1523241 px radius 
>> brush ;-) ), but  hiding them in a collapsing section is fine.
> Actually, I was thinking of making the brushes rounded in value by 
> default. Users can chose a preference where they can have 0.0234 
> pixel brushes, but more likely, it'd go something like this:
> - from 0.0 to 0.2, you can go 0.05 pixels at a time.
> - from 0.2 to 2.0, value goes up 0.1 at a time.
> - and... so forth, until at big brushes (15+?), sizes are constrained 
> (by default) to 1 pixel increments. I don't know many people who 
> want to make 15.01 pixel brushes, nor see anyone who'd even be 
> able to notice that 0.01 difference in the editor.
> Want your 15.01 pixel brush? Open the collapsible window and enter
> manually.

Sounds great to me :-). (I'm not sure what you would draw with a brush 
that has a radius of 0.05 pixels though ;-), but maybe/probably such 
small values work better with brushes that are effectively lines.)

> @ Matthew Woehlke
> Say, what you say is quite interesting. Maybe it should be separated 
> into a separate topic on polyline placements and paths? It's starting 
> to deviate a bit from brush angles, and it well-deserves to be 
> discussed on its own. Admittedly though, I have no idea how the next
> implementation of Krita handles these things either...

Hehe, sorry for hijacking the thread :-). I already replied before I 
read this, though; maybe someone else (i.e. whoever has read this and 
replies next) can start a new thread.

If you can read this, you're too close.

More information about the kimageshop mailing list