Yet Another Brush Proposal

[Valerie]

> I'd go with PS's model... a "revert to default" seems complicated (where
> the heck do you store the defaults? In the source code?!), but a 
> load/save system is just good UI. If you screw up, load the "default 
> gradients" preset. If you fsck that too, well then... ;-)

I don't get it. XD (then again, I don't use Photoshop)

> (This being open source, you would of course just re-install them.

Re-installing, I Do get. :-)

> if you used a package you probably cannot write to those anyway,
> so...)

Um... are you referring to the need of having special permissions
to modify packages in the source? (basically, it's what forces me to
use sudo every time I want to delete those extra Gimp round brushes?)

> Pigment opacity should be downplayed, if we even need it (maybe dumped 
> somewhere obscure in the color picker). Think of pigment opacity as 
> something that is *combined* with rate, pressure, etc, i.e. things where
> the brush would deposit less pigment. Basically, it only exists so that 
> you can get mostly-translucent painting even when pressing really hard
> :-).
> 
> That said, I think I disagree with not having options separate, or at 
> least separable. Actually, putting them next to each other is a good 
> idea (if it's feasible), but I haven't put a whole lot of thought into 
> actual interface layout. But in my mind, what pigment I put on the 
> canvas, the instrument I use to put it there, and the way I wave around 
> that instrument should all be separate and interchangeable.

Ah-hah! I get it now. You and I may just be after completely different
paint interface concepts:
- I'm thinking more of a CG-approach, as this is what I'm used to
(and what most digital programs use) 
- you may just be going for a more "realistic" paint interface approach

With CG you have somewhat more technical terms floating around such 
as opacity and whatnot that you'd usually not have with natural
media (pencil or paint with 42.3% opacity? Right). And to chose
color you have all these fancy sliders whereas in real life you make
due with squeezing tubes (RGB 122,154,001 what?).

These concepts are Handy, but don't exist in real life. 

I think both approaches are needed. They'll just end up in different
workspaces depending on what people are comfortable with.

Basically, what needs to be coded first is a more advanced version
of the color mixer: you'd instead have a real Paint mixer. In this
paint mixer, you first chose the type of paint you want, then you
add other basic colors to modify the one in the mixed, and you add
water and such to change the so-called opacity implicitly. To add
color to your brush, you dab into the mixer, and the different
bristles may even take on different colors.

Is this what you had in mind? :-)

(the CG approach should also be available to those who are more
comfortable with it though, technical terms and everything. After all,
some of us actually find those Easier to work with, since people like
I actually have no idea what you're supposed to do with natural media.
:P )

> > The users would probably respond with an "April fool" of their own
> > though by submitting dozens of bug reports on Krita being attacked
> > by viruses. D:
> 
> I suppose if the community turned out to be so lacking in a sense of 
> humor, I'd change it back. But I think it would be fun to do at least 
> once ;-).

True. :D

> Speaking of easter eggs, did you know some version (95?) of MS Excel hid
> a 3d terrain simulation?

Whoa, it did? Without getting into lawsuits?


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com