Sign in to follow this  
usedHONDA

The <off topic> thread

Recommended Posts

That way, we could alienate ourselves from Photoshop.
Whilst I'm all up for Paint.NET having its own identity, its own brand a such, I also believe in more open, cross-platform formats. If we are able to use a common format that many applications can use, like PNG for the bitmap world, then that would be wonderful: people wouldn't be tied down by Paint.NET, having the opportunity to dance and prance between graphic applications. One tool is never enough when the combination of software features can give far more freedom when designing.

I think the PSD format is becoming that way, but there are still third-party additions or extra software needed for some programs to read it, and it then becomes a burden to use other applications which could offer the tool or feature you require. PSD monopolised the graphic world when only Adobe's software could read it, and whilst this was probably best for business, it was not practical - and certainly is not now with a broad market offering many alternatives.

I'll be more inclined to vouch for a brush system then sports a format that is interchangeable and easy to transfer between software. Be that when Paint.NET packs its own system, or when Simon brings in his own brush format for his plugin.

I would like to offer such a file type, but at the moment I'm not well versed in brush formats, nor have the time right now to research. Ask me in a few hours ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That way, we could alienate ourselves from Photoshop.
Whilst I'm all up for Paint.NET having its own identity, its own brand a such, I also believe in more open, cross-platform formats. If we are able to use a common format that many applications can use, like PNG for the bitmap world, then that would be wonderful: people wouldn't be tied down by Paint.NET, having the opportunity to dance and prance between graphic applications. One tool is never enough when the combination of software features can give far more freedom when designing.

I think the PSD format is becoming that way, but there are still third-party additions or extra software needed for some programs to read it, and it then becomes a burden to use other applications which could offer the tool or feature you require. PSD monopolised the graphic world when only Adobe's software could read it, and whilst this was probably best for business, it was not practical - and certainly is not now with a broad market offering many alternatives.

I'll be more inclined to vouch for a brush system then sports a format that is interchangeable and easy to transfer between software. Be that when Paint.NET packs its own system, or when Simon brings in his own brush format for his plugin.

I would like to offer such a file type, but at the moment I'm not well versed in brush formats, nor have the time right now to research. Ask me in a few hours ;).

I see.

Simon,if you are reading this, make us a format, please!:D

Can anyone answer my second question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be cool is if the graphics sphere saw advancement similar to the OpenDocument (Wiki this) movement that Office software is seeing.

Sure, it might not be able to support everything everywhere, but if there were a basic framework established that would support - in an open manner - the biggest necessities of editable layered documents, interoperability would reach a new high. Of course, proprietary formats will most likely never go away, but if there were a set open standard that the big players would agree to support as an option, the world would be a happy place. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a delight that would be, CMD.

I've been digging, and at the moment, there seems to be no common format used for brushes: Photoshop uses ABR as its default, whilst GIMP employs a format known as GBR as its default - to name but two of the foremost graphic editing leaders. Much like we do now with Simon's plugin, GIMP does give the opportunity to convert one brush format into its GBR, but no in-built means of using, say, PS' ABR brush directly.

As I don't have access to PS, I am unsure how it handles other types of brush, but I would surprised if it didn't follow the same rational GIMP and we have emplaced.

So, it appears there is no standard available as CMD indirectly implied by his wishful thinking. Shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GIMP does give the opportunity to convert one brush format into its GBR, but no in-built means of using, say, PS' ABR brush directly.

Actually, I've used several Photoshop ABR brush packs in The GIMP directly - no modification required. Just toss them in the brushes folder as you would any GBR file, and you're good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I've used several Photoshop ABR brush packs in The GIMP directly - no modification required. Just toss them in the brushes folder as you would any GBR file, and you're good to go.
I was not aware of this. Not using the GIMP all that much, I took the advice of the help page on brushes which reads something along the lines of opening that file and saving it with an amended GBR extension. Maybe it's their way of clawing users into using only GBR brushes?

I don't know, I'm not the biggest fan of the GIMP.

However, this does show that ABR is natively compatible with two major players on the graphic editing field. Add to that Artweaver which has the ability to import ABR brushes. Perhaps ABR is swiftly becoming that standard we all love and long for, clambering to popularity because of its association with Photoshop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add some magenta, and throw in pastel colours on top of portrait. It ought to do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one question: I am attempting to implement multi-frame brushes into CB and these are stored in a ZIP archive (note: I am using SharpZipLib), and due to my problems with using a ZipStream (not exact class name) I decided to use FastZip to uncompress each brush of this type in a seperate folder in the Temp directory which would remain there for the lifetime of the plugin. However, for some reason Vista/.NET throws an exeption when I attempt to call .NET to perform a recursive delete as an overload of the Directory.Delete method, and for this reason I attempted to delete each file manually, some brush files were deleted whereas others remained, and the plugin closed with an exception and thus I am seeking another solution. My main question is, would Jeff Atwood burn me at the stake if I stored temp files in a subdirectory of the Custom Brushes folder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have one question: I am attempting to implement multi-frame brushes into CB and these are stored in a ZIP archive (note: I am using SharpZipLib), and due to my problems with using a ZipStream (not exact class name) I decided to use FastZip to uncompress each brush of this type in a seperate folder in the Temp directory which would remain there for the lifetime of the plugin. However, for some reason Vista/.NET throws an exeption when I attempt to call .NET to perform a recursive delete as an overload of the Directory.Delete method, and for this reason I attempted to delete each file manually, some brush files were deleted whereas others remained, and the plugin closed with an exception and thus I am seeking another solution. My main question is, would Jeff Atwood burn me at the stake if I stored temp files in a subdirectory of the Custom Brushes folder?

Why just not add APNG support? Or GIF even, animated brushes like those in Photoshop aren't generallly supposed to be high quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this