Re: tag for edited file

Path	csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups	rec.photo.digital, sci.engr.color, sci.image.processing
Subject	Re: tag for edited file
Date	Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:33:40 +0200
Lines	48
Message-ID	<khsjug-d9t.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> (permalink)
References	<dapqa1.90u.19.1@news.alt.net> <s8m9ug-lu3.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <180720201137364907%nospam@nospam.invalid> <bl5jug-11o.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> <210720201013177237%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net yrnPJGk2fAU+FvYJqqSsawCjjXLAp7U5lJHZabfir+nW5I5xAW
X-Orig-Path	Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock	sha1:F5AVOlOV7zE5XpMIFKT3KhuaEUc=
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
In-Reply-To	<210720201013177237%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language	en-CA
Xref	csiph.com rec.photo.digital:235368 sci.engr.color:1222 sci.image.processing:4507

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

On 21/07/2020 16.13, nospam wrote:
> In article <bl5jug-11o.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>>> Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?
>>>>
>>>> making the file huge.
>>>
>>> only if done incorrectly.
>>
>> No way. Say the original is 10 Mb. Each modification saved is another 10 Mb.
> 
> that's doing it incorrectly.
> 
> the correct way to do it is by saving an edit list and replay it, not
> saving a version of the entire image each time.

That's not what the OP said, and needs having the same application for 
replaying the steps.

> 
> each step is *tiny*, measured in bytes and replaying is *fast*,
> especially when rendered on a gpu.
> 
>>>> However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo
>>>> works.
>>>
>>> saving the undo history in the image is silly. is that gimp's lame
>>> attempt at non-destructive editing because they refuse to do it
>>> correctly? if so, that's laughable.
>>
>> Ha ha. They are doing it correctly. You are biased.
> 
> nope. they aren't doing it at all and have no immediate plans to do so.
> 
> they now claim that it might be added in version 3.2 (a change from
> their previous claim which was a flat 'no'), except they haven't
> figured out how to do it, according to their own road map.
> 
> the gimp is a toy, lacking features photoshop had 30 years ago and
> *significantly* slower on the same hardware.

Ha ha.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

Thread

tag for edited file dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2020-07-17 17:21 -0400
  Re: tag for edited file "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-18 00:45 +0200
    Re: tag for edited file nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-18 11:37 -0400
      Re: tag for edited file "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-21 15:03 +0200
        Re: tag for edited file nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-21 10:13 -0400
          Re: tag for edited file "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-21 21:33 +0200
            Re: tag for edited file nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-21 18:45 -0400
  Re: tag for edited file Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2020-07-18 16:34 +0100
  Re: tag for edited file dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2020-07-23 15:54 -0400
    Re: tag for edited file nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-23 16:04 -0400

csiph-web