https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438799
--- Comment #12 from Deif Lou <gin...@gmail.com> ---
These are my thoughts:
- I'm not insisting on anything.
- I added the softness option for two reasons:
1. There was no way in the fill tool to make a aliased fill without
selecting the fast mode. But selecting that prevents you from using other
features, like filling with a pattern.
2. The antialias option in the contiguous selection tool was not really
true antialiasing. It just marked if the selection should retain the
semi-transparent pixels or make them opaque.
- The flood fill algorithm used in both tools does not have anything to do with
antialiasing. So one should not expect that result when using those tools.
Photoshop kind of fakes it, but it is not true antialiasing. For example, if
the magic wand produces a straight vertical edge, it "blurs" it by 1 pixel, but
true antialiasing wouldn't do that. I think I know how it does it.
- The default value for softness I chose was that way to make the tools behave
as before by default.
- I agree that the options in the tools are confusing as well as the naming.
- I think that the softness option is useful for example if you want to make a
soft selection or a fill that is not equaly soft in all directions, guided by
the reference image. Maybe it should be renamed to something like "strength",
"fastness", "contrast", "spread" or something like that.
- If you simplify the options in one, then there will be users that will
complain. You only will be able to do a subset of the things you are able to
do.
- What you propose for the one-option-fuzzyness can be kind of achieved right
now as a combination of extend/contract and feathering. You have to select 0
softness (aliased) and: a positive extend and the same number for feathering if
you want the semi-transparent area outside the selected region; negative extend
and the same number for feathering if you want the semi-transparent area
outside the selected region; 0 extend and a feathering if you want the
semi-transparent area around the selected region contour. As you can see there
are multiple implementation options just for that feature. If we choose one,
some users are going to want another. I know it is kind of messy and that needs
some knowledge of how the options work. But something similar to this is
present in the drop shadow or glow layer effects as the spread/size pair and
nobody complaint.
- I don't think the addition of new options will be one of the major issues for
people to adopt Krita. I think that when tool presets become a thing, the more
options the better, since then the user could benefit from several flavors of
fill tool or contiguous selection tool without worrying about the
technicalities if some tool presets are shared as bundles, just like the brush
presets, but that's my opinion only.
- I think that we can start by remaking the tool options paner for those tools.
Maybe separate the options in sections, something like:
* Region Selection (options related to how the region is selected)
* tolerance slider (the threshold, I like tolerance better for some
reason)
* spread slider (what softness does right now)
* Fill type
* combo with: selection
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
