New brush dialog
lukast.dev at gmail.com
Thu Jun 17 11:37:53 CEST 2010
On Thursday, June 17, 2010 09:44:36 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 June 2010, LukasT.dev at gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm working on polishing spray paintop and make in more consistent with
> > other paintops. The aim is to support Photoshop brush presets.
> To the spray paintop? Btw, didn't the plan call for a photoshop brush
> engine? Or do you think that can just as easily be implemented in spray,
> or am I mistaken somewhere?
You probably did not see the discussion with me and Cyrille on IRC?. Spray
supports some of the Photoshop features, so that's why I work on it.
> > The old spray supported also QPainterPath brush. It is brush defined by
> > points (polygon) and filled with constant color with nicely anti-aliased
> > edges. Spray supported two shapes - circle and rectangle. It is easy to
> > add new shapes - just need to define some algorithm. These brushes are
> > easy to scale (scale the points, not pixel mask) compared to predefined
> > brushes which looks quite bad when scaled too much. This brush could be
> > used for rasterizing some vector file format maybe?
> That's an interesting idea.
> > Or I can image to do
> > "random shape" with it easily to support something more like what alchemy
> > is doing.
> That's interesting as well. Though perhaps too interesting for the action
That was just the idea where I would go further with that. No Action plan
item...yet :P :)
> > Then there is QImage brush. You load one picture in tons of format
> > supported by QImage and when you have kdelibs, even more formats. The use
> > case is, I made a photo of a leaf and I want to test it quickly how it
> > looks when I paint with it. Yes, we have predefined brushes, but I don't
> > know if supporting pure jpg, png without meta information there is the
> > way to go. I don't think so.
> No, I agree that the image hose is a different function from painting with
> a predefined brush, at least from the pov of a painter. (Which is what we
> should model our user interface after, not the internal structure of the
I don't get you here? It has nothing with Image hose. It's like loading
predefined brush mask from jpg, png, ...
> > First what do you think about those brushes?
> I'm a bit hesistant to support writing wonderful new brush effects like
> alchemy-like random vector brushes or painting with svg images. Do we have
> time for that within the action plan? There are always, of course, the
> evenings, but it's also summer... I don't want to lose any of the wonderful
> stuff we have in the spray brush now.
This mail was not about it, I wanted to hear about the dialog and a way how to
make spray more consistent with the paintops and make a room for Photoshop
> > I started to work on making them KisBrush-based brushes but it has
> > some problems. First the UI. Should I add one Tab with all of these
> > brushes to the standard dialog? Or maybe should I add More Tabs? (for
> > every type of brush I describe - Polygon, Pixel, Image).
> I'd say, keep the spray specific things in their own pages. Making them
> into KisBrush based brushes will likely be quite difficult concpetually.
I was talking basically just about particle type, nothing else. Particle type
is brush mask basically.
> > Other thing is also performance, but that later. I just wanted to draw a
> > picture of what I'm doing right now.
> Always think of the children^Wperformance!
performance for the win!
More information about the kimageshop