New brush dialog at
Thu Jun 17 11:43:40 CEST 2010

> > 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 preddefined
> > brushes which looks quite bad when scaled too much. This brush could be
> > used for rasterizing some vector file format maybe? Or I can image to do
> > "random shape" with it easily to support something more like what
> > alchemy is doing.
> Are your QPainterPath shapes and Autobrush shapes different ? They seems
> to have the same purpose. If so, maybe they could be merged somehow ?
> What about Flake shape ? They have the advantage to be customizable by
> the user. For example, double-clicking on a vector tip would open a new
> Karbon or Krita window to edit the shape. Saving over would update the
> brush tip.

Autobrush/Softbrush is brush mask which has more attributes like softness or 
density. This QPainterPath is just pure polygon filled with color and with 
anti-aliased edges. I don't think they should be merged, but I need to hear 
Cyrille here.

The other idea sounds cool. But that's something for future.

> > 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 preddefined 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.

> I changed my mind a bit on that, I didn't realize the need of meta-data
> for settings...
> I think that images loaded as predefined brushes should be converted to
> the current format and copied to the brush tip folder (I don't like the
> idea of having brush tips outside the brush tip folder, it's too easy to
> forget that it's linked to some PaintOp and erase it).
> Maybe Krita should have its own brush format, simple and clean without
> the redundant things from Gimp's brushes (redundant because paintop
> settings allow to do the same thing in a more powerful way)?
> Another solution could be to separate meta-data from the image, but
> that's still like creating a new format.
> For your use case with the leaf photo, it will be solved easily by the
> come back of custom brushes:
> Then you would just open your image > select all > add to predefined
> brushes.

Ok, this sounds cool. 
Can I drop QImage support in spray then? 
> I had proposed once that all brush tips would be displayed in the
> predefined brush dialog. A colored dot would indicated the type of brush
> tip (for example, red for raster, blue for vector, green for text,
> etc...). Then other tabs would be only used more rarely, to create new
> brush tip presets.
> Every steps would be clearly defined then :
> brush tip creation | brush tip preset selection | paintop creation |
> paintop preset selection.
> But more thinking is needed, I think.

Interesting idea. Might be worth to investigate but it is complicated issue 
but user-frendlier idea

More information about the kimageshop mailing list