Re: [Gimp-user] Question about the new sliders

[Gary Aitken <gimp dreamchaser org>]

On 12/05/12 14:00, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 13:46 -0700, Gary Aitken wrote:
> > On 12/05/12 13:12, Liam R E Quin wrote:
>
> > I don't think so.  In the case of the paintbrush size, what is the max value?
>
> The maximum value is 10,000. However, since your slider is probably less
> than 10,000 pixels wide, the approach taken seems to have been to use
> 1,000 as the maximum settable within the slider, but to let you continue
> dragging (or edit the number, or use the tiny increment button).
>
> > It is certainly not reached at the right boundary of the size slider, where it
> > is ~1000.  I can drag clear outside the slider to the right edge of the display
> > and get it up to ~9500.
>
> Right.
>
> > The OP was requesting a manner in which to get integral values, which I
> > think is the main frustration.
>
> Yes, you can't do that this way.

Bummer

> I admit I usually use editable brushes, which are limited to square,
> diamond, circle, triangle, etc., and I have keys bound to
> increment-by-10, increment-by-1, and the same for decrement.

likewise, without the bindings.

> I think wanting integer-only brush sizes would be an enhancement
> request, although I'm not sure I understand the motivation: scaling by a
> non-integral amount sometimes gives better results. But maybe integral
> brush sizes is just a thing I happen never to have wanted :)

Not sure I understand that statement.
You apparently use integral brush sizes enough to have bound keys to
incrementing and decrementing by 1 and 10.  That seems to imply you
use integral brushes a lot, unless you always start with an odd-ball
non-integer brush size.
Am I missing something?

I'm not a graphic artist, but if you're designing an icon, for example,
or a finely detailed map as a that you want as compact as possible, you 
sometimes want to minimize feathering, anti-aliasing, and everything else
that results in "partial" colors of one form or another.  I don't have a
lot of experience with this but I know I often end up with these artifacts
when I've forgotten to turn off things like anti-aliasing and feathering
for various operations.  How does one intuit what is a brush with a 2.85 
pixel diameter going to do when it paints?  In these sorts of instances 
when I'm editing pixels, I want a brush size that lays / aligns more or 
less exactly with the pixels in the image.

That may not be the best way to do the things I'm trying to do in these 
instances, and I'm happy to learn better ways.  But one uses the tools in
the way one knows how, although that's sometimes like using the back of a
knife to undo a screw...

> [...]
> >  From what you've described as the formula, I would say it may be mostly
> > behaving as intended, modulo the max value issue and modulo the where is
> > it supposed to be clamped on the right boundary issue.
>
> I think this is a feature and not a bug.

If this is a feature, and if you can grant that wanting integral sizes has
some utility, shouldn't that be relatively easy to attain by the user?  
I would submit that integral sizes, or something more integral than 0.01 
increments for brush size in particular, is likely a common desire.  This 
could be as simple as a global option, over-rideable on a per-tool basis, 
over-rideable on a per attribute basis, for "minimum increment".  It might 
also be useful to be able to set the max and min values (max in particular).  
I suspect there are very few people who want a brush size more than 1000 
(but hey, I don't design billboards).  If there are, I would like to be 
able to set a more reasonable max.

Gary