Report of Meeting: plans 2011

[JL VT]

(Most of this message was written right before Silvio added his answer  =P
I will complete it in the same spirit as if I hadn't read Silvio's answer)

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:49 PM, LukasT.dev at gmail.com
<lukast.dev at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > 3.
> > As regards Pentalis, I would like to having him working on a new mixing
> > brush engine.
> > In the past, I have read he wished to work on it.
> > As for me, I am confident he is the right guy to finish this task ;-)
> > Needless to say, also for Pentalis there is really NO rush!
>
> Regarding the fact, that you resources are limited, I think maybe
> somehow more wiser solution would be to support Pentalis in the Google
> Summer
> Of Code program (if there will be one) with this idea and if that fails,
> let's
> use your resources.
>

Actually, I am not going for GSoC this year. I won't be a student anymore
when applications open. I could enroll to something to be able to
participate (like I did in 2010) but that is not my focus this year.


>
> Also other idea: if the community feels like this is important feature (I
> remember David Revoy said he used it) to be done, I have probably the
> biggest
> experiences with the brush engines, so I suppose _maybe_ I would be more
> effective regarding the time needed to implement it (port it from GIMP
> Painter)
> and we can put it in my Action Plan.
>

I think you would be more efficient at porting it from GIMP Painter. But
David, and myself, and probably Silvio too, want a more powerful brush. In
the case of David Revoy, he wanted something that felt like mixing
watercolors; in my case, I want something capable of giving a wide range of
textures to the brush on top of mixing colors, a texture regulated by
parameters (or in nerdspeak: parametrical texturing), in addition to the
ability to mix colors not simply by painting dabs on the canvas like the
smudge brush (or GIMP Painter's) but by other methods too.


> I don't want to take him this sponsored project, I just wanted to share I
> might be more effective, like Dmitry is more effective in the backend stuff
> like
> canvas, tiles, threading, I'm more confident regarding the brush engines.
>
> Pentalis can be sponsored to work on some different project -- to finish
> Impasto? or to restore Emanuelle's work? Or still can be discussed..But if
> he
> really wants to work on this, then no...I will be here for you to help you
> ;)
> My point was only about being efficient with the Silvio's money in this
> case.
>

Actually I really want to work on this (I was already working on it before I
was offered sponsorship).

Polishing Phong Bumpmap, Impasto, and the Halftone brush are things that
will come with time (Halftone and Bumpmap first, Impasto much later), since
I feel I owe those, however I don't think any of those is too important for
Krita at the moment compared to a good mixing brush.

As for restoring Emanuelle's work... now that's something really really
interesting but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. The Painterly
Framework was made with the very idea of simulating subtractive color mixing
in mind (if it was made thinking of something different then please correct
me). If a brush engine is made that can mix colors like that (or in other
fashions), then there is no need for the painterly framework anymore, at
least not with any urgency.
Knowing myself, It's only a matter of time before I try to solve the problem
theoretically, but whether it turns into code that goes into Krita is
something I don't know; it /will/ turn into a lengthy wall of text
describing my findings somewhere though.


Now comes what would've gone into a separate e-mail after Silvio's answer
--->

Silvio wrote:

>
> > Pentalis can be sponsored to work on some different projects -- to finish

Impasto? or to restore Emanuelle's work?


> Wow. What a conundrum! :-)


> It goes without saying that having a mixing brush engine is vital for Krita

:-)

Whether it is developed by Pentalis, thanks to a Google summer of code, or

through my sponsorship it is up to you to decide (Pentalis plus Krita's

developers: Boud, Cyrille, Sven and so on).


> Let's think about the better options to try to satisfy everyone ;-)


> Naturally, now it is also up to Pentalis to speak his mind ;-)


Well, my mind says that porting GIMP Painter's mixing brush is not a long
term solution.

I envision the mixing brush engine as something made with object oriented
programming in mind, modular, thorough and clear; Something that covers many
needs and where the theory behind the code (the "model") is evident (such
that others can extend it without trying to figure out what was I thinking).
Of course I also want it to do more than just mixing. I don't think GIMP
Painter's mixbrush was made with that vision in mind since the author
himself described it as a learning exercise.

I had a large e-mail describing all the thought I've given to the topic and
it seems this is a good moment to send it to the mailing list. This should
open up the discussion for others to give feedback on what they expect from
the brush. I've been painting lately, so at the very least I know what I
need myself (part of that already described earlier in the e-mail).

I think I am the right person to do this because I'm passionate about it,
and have given MUCH thought to possible solutions (aka theoretical work).
Code is where things get less fun but writing it myself saves all the time
needed to explain the idea point by point to someone else (I think I've
heard people say that they took longer explaining something than coding it
themselves).
After the code is done, programmers, who are more experienced at reading
someone else's code, will probably understand what I was thinking after
reading the code I write. Then it all will make more sense than with just a
theoretical overview.

Anyway, I've spoken my mind. Wall of text incoming in another thread!.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20110105/79fb2c54/attachment.html