Brush spacing / rotate / scale

[Moritz Moeller]

Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Valerie VK wrote:
>> Though... I'm not sure if the above are the best implementations of 
>> this feature. XD I don't have much experience in attempting to 
>> combine raster and vectors. Matthew, since you started this, what 
>> is your own input on this?

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).

In most high end compositing & paint apps, strokes are defined by 
parametric curves that then can be rendered as a bitmap, guided by 
several (potentially varying) parameters along this curve. This bitmap 
then gets composed onto the image.
If the user later pleases to edit that curve, all objects intersecting 
the resp. region get redrawn (as in a vector graphics app).

Which leads to the next thing: a node-based design. The notion of an 
image ceases to exist. It's just data of some sort (i.e. a plane of 
pixels) that gets moved to s series of nodes. While an app that only 
supports layers doesn't necessitate such an approach, I reckon it still 
beneficial in any case from an implementation pov, "behind the scenes".

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).

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

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... :)

.mm