[ale] GIMP

[Marvin Dickens]

On Sat, 2003-05-17 at 23:27, Geoffrey wrote:

> Right, but in both cases, the pixel isolation is caused by the selection 
> tool, not the fill tool, right?  Thus, you would have the same issues 
> with transparency, as the 'missed pixels' would be there in both cases.

I dunno... This is a classic chicken or the egg thing. On one hand, all
of the tools definately do this. On the other hand so do the fill tools.
Even so, it would seem to me that analysis of the different tools
(regardless of their function) would provide information that could be
used to acurately predict where pixel isolation would occur. Naturally,
the geometry as well as the spatiality of the glyphs that compose the
image determine the amount of pixel isolation as well as where it would
occur. Fixing this isn't the big deal. It would be getting all of the
data from the analysis of different tools. That portion would be _very_
time consuming. 

I do know this: Pixel isolation is a big deal in world of fonts. Fonts
that are well hinted have low occurances of pixel isolation even as the
size of the font increases.

> Let me know when you're done with it? :)

Right now, I'm involved in the project that is developing the driver for
camera's and webcams that are based on the sunplus chip set(The spca50x
project at sourceforge.net). It's consuming almost of the free time that
I've allocated for programming (As play, not work).

Best

M. Dickens 

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale