A first part of the layers/masks patch

[Cyrille Berger]

On Saturday 26 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Cyrille Berger <cberger at cberger.net>wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:
> > > > for a,b,c) it doesn't work perfectly, but it's not that broken.
> > >
> > > But still not usable =(
> >
> > Well now, I have fix all the issue with the alpha colorspace (I have
> > added alpha darken). All it remains to do is to make mask support the
> > indirect painting interface.
> 
> Well, no. You've not fixed that. It's just a workaround.
> 
> Testcase:
> 1) Create any mask (e.g. transparency mask)
> 2) Paint something on a mask to get transparency
> 
> Let's imagine after these steps you decide to make some rect visible again,
> what are you going to do? In a good editor you just select this rect with
> selection and fill it with a white color (or any semi-transparent one(!)).
Why white ?

> You CAN'T do the same with krita, as far as i can see. Yes, you can use
> pixel eraser tool (that is not so obvious, btw), but what if your rect is
> 1024x1024 size? 
No, I would say, there is a bug in the fill tool that needs to be fixed.

> Are you gonna fill it with a small brush?
you can use bigger brush....

> That's why i repeat again, we must use grayscale-like system for
> transparency masks. Current discreet selection system is a dirty hack.

Sorry, but I feel it's the other way around... How are you supposed to know 
that white correspond to transparent ? (or is it black ?) While choosing 
transparency for setting the transparency sounds more logical to me.

> > It doesn't use the gray color, but this is by design, it means you have
> > to use
> > the opacity setting (this is something we have been debating in krita for
> > years, wether opacity belongs in the tool or in the color selector).
> > Gradient work if you choose a gradient with transparency, in a future
> > release,
> > it could be worth investigating adding an option to the gradient tool for
> > working on the transparent channel instead of colors (I think it might
> > have a
> > broader use).
> 
> Do not create additional abstraction for a user. He knows what the color
>  is, this is RGB values. The user DOES NOT know anything about our INTERNAL
>  representation of the color as rgbA. RGB != RGBA. He knows (or should
>  know) _nothing_ about alpha channel of the brush or of the layer. It's
>  editor's job to think about alpha, not user's one!

Hum ? alpha I would agree, but transparency... I sure hope the user would know 
about transparency/opacity otherwise why would he want to use a transparency 
mask in the first place ?
 
> PS:
> Sorry for brute words. I don't know how to explain it. I repeat it again
>  and again...
> We have a weird selections system and you don't even want to make it
>  better.
Sure I want, I just disagree with the assumption that color has a meaning for 
selection.

-- 
Cyrille Berger