Hello,

I was about to write a rather detailed interface/feature improvement suggestion about the brush editing feature in GIMP but then I thought that first it would be better to show you all this (incomplete) interface mock-up I made:

http://i32.tinypic.com/1zwdwts.png

Basically, in my vision, the brush editing dockable window would be much more detailed than what is now, containing most settings in common between brush-based tools (and also many new more), which is similar to what happens in other professional bitmap editing programs.

Not only this would result in a more powerful brush editing process, but also in a significant reduction of icons in the toolbox. Many of the brush based tools that are there right now would become brush presets, which would work very well with the new tagging feature introduced in the GIT version of GIMP.

Obviously backward compatibility with previous brush versions would need to be maintained in some way.

If it turns out that brush editing in GIMP is actually going into this direction I'll be happy to describe much more in detail the interface and the behavior of the options and settings I have in mind (unfortunately I'm not an experienced programmer so I cannot explain in detail specific implementation details).

Martin Nordholts wrote:

Hi Akira,

I suppose you haven't seen http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Paint_dynamics_specification ?

Hi Martin,

Yes, I've already seen that! The idea (which I have not yet described in the opening message) is that each Dynamics button (those with the arrow inside) next to almost every numerically variable brush parameter would open of these Paint Dynamics windows in the page you linked. There would not be need to do this for all desired parameters as the Paint dynamics window has already a drop box with all the configurable settings.

What I am proposing anyway is not a new brush dynamics system (which is already well thought out from what I see), but a new brush *parameters* system/editing window.

In mind, things like hard edge (antialiasing), jitter, fade, etc, would become brush parameters instead of being tool settings like they are now. There would be also more settings; some completely new and some which would be only slight variations or additions to the current system.

Would you like me to write more in detail and be more specific regarding this?

Martin Nordholts wrote:

Absolutely, I mean why would you hold it back?

Because in its entirety my vision is an extensive change not only in brush selecting and editing compared to the current versions, but also in many aspects of the user interface (depending on how much of it would be implemented) and to explain it in detail it would require me some effort (maybe a few days) in both describing it in words (also because English is not my native language) and making graphic examples, which I have not prepared yet.

If GIMP UI and brush development was going to another direction anyway, then there wouldn't be the need for such a detailed explanation, I think.

Anyway, since I see that you seem interested I think I'll expand this idea. It will require me some time though. For now I can summarize it in a few points:

- Make brush based tools as general as possible. Standard: Paint tool, eraser tool, clone/heal tool, tweak tool Advanced: Paint tool, clone/heal tool, tweak tool Extreme: Freehand/Geometric brush tool

- Move most brush based tool settings in the brush settings window

- Expand the brush settings window with more useful options

- Leave the old tool selection concept to the new taggable brush selection window

With a new generic brush system in most of the brush behavior is described by the brush settings, it's possible to leave the old tool selection concept to the new (and possibly even more improved) taggable brush presets window.

This is similar somewhat in what happens in Corel Painter: there is only one "brush tool", and many different brush "presets" grouped under different "tags" (Eraser, pencils, watercolor, clone tools, tweaking tools, etc). The most used presets can be dragged in a user specified window. In GIMP they could be docked to the new, lighter tool bar (which would by default have many less tools because many sharing the same functionality/concept would be merged into one).

Oh, I ended up being more detailed than I thought! I'd like to expand more this idea though. I hope now it's more clear what I have in mind anyway.

Patrick Horgan wrote:

Very cool! I'd only add a save button on the bottom right so that this combination of settings could be saved as a named button if desired.

Yes, as I wrote, it's still very incomplete and I made this basically to show that the brush editing window could include many of the settings currently in common between various brush-based tools. Of course much more could be added.

David Gowers wrote:

What do you mean here? I think we need at least these paint tools:

Paint (this would be able to do all of what Pencil, Paintbrush, and Airbrush do currently, and perhaps also Eraser), Ink (this does not use 'brushes'), Clone (also Heal?) , Perspective Clone , Blur/Sharpen, Dodge/Burn, Smudge. Do you really have a proposition to unify all of those, or do I misunderstand you?

Yes, my proposition is to unify all of those.

The idea is that 'brushes' would become something different than what it is now, more related to the "physical" proprieties of the tool used (= brush preset) than their meaning in the computer graphics world.

Brushes in the 'brush' setting window would be of different, selectable types, like for example:

- Brushless -> Behavior as with the current ink tool - Parametric -> Vector brushes with adjustable settings affecting their shape, possibly of many different types (and not only "circular") - From clipboard -> Bitmap brush
- From file -> Load a brush in bitmap/SVG format (future versions) - From path -> Vector brush from a user defined path (future versions)

Paint, eraser, smudge, clone, blur/sharpen, dodge/burn, clone, would be simply different "brush" modes selectable in the brush editing window, possibly in addition to others. Some would be mutually exclusive (since their effect would cancel one each other, some would stack.

With my idea this way a "brush" can have different shapes, different physical behaviors, and different modes of operation.

Of course, there would be plenty of built-in presets (since the amount of different options would be overwhelming for the average user) selectable from the brush preset Window. A few basic settings (size, opacity, spacing/rate and dynamics will remain easily selectable within the standard tool settings window.

There are some usability details to be still clarified, but this is my general idea. Anyway, I agree that it would be similar in many ways than how MyPaint works (I swear I have never heard of this great application before!).

(By the way, I think maybe it's better to explain this idea a bit a time while discussing with other users instead writing a long slab of text like I initially intended?)

David Gowers wrote:

I considered that modes might be how you meant to implement it. That is definitely a large change in the way the user would use paint tools, we should get Peter Sikking's input here for sure.

Most users wouldn't normally have to play with those details. There could be a standard set of brush presets grouped under various tags which would contain at least one version of each mode (by default for example a fuzzy and a standard circle variant, freely scalable).

Here's a quick and dirty mock-up of what I have in mind: http://i29.tinypic.com/wikarn.png

And we must make it visually clear that these are really properties of the brush, to avoid user confusion
(A disclosure triangle would deal with this neatly)

Yes, you're right. I haven't thought about this yet.

Another thing is that we have actions named like tools-value-[12345]-(increase|decrease), etc which currently control some brush parameters (value-1 is opacity, usually). With your proposition, we should consider whether we need more actions so that the user can do more quick changes by keyboard (for example, I'd like to be able to toggle 'Apply Jitter' using a keyboard shortcut. And if 'Fade' (and fade length) were bindable to keyboard actions, they would be far more usable IMO.

I think that anything that can be varied with pen tablet dynamics (I proposed that most numerically variable brush parameters would be) needs to have optional keyboard actions too.

oh, that reminds me, I gave the wrong URL, the correct URL is: http://mypaint.intilinux.com

Yes, I eventually figured it out and downloaded the Windows build.

Definitely, it will get developed more, that way :)

True!

SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote:

Yes, my proposition is to unify all of those.

And this is a mock-up of my idea of how the toolbar would end up looking like by merging many tools into one:

http://i25.tinypic.com/2ihxyd5.png

SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote:

Hello,

I tried putting together my ideas I wrote about in this thread, in a single image. The result is an Inkscape-like SDI GIMP

I know that in the medium term one of the main goal will be an SDI interface, and that would work very well with the improvements I have in mind.

New interface and improvements mock-up link: http://i31.tinypic.com/2qjd55k.png

Work in progress (the images needs annotations), of course, and open to changes and suggestions.

Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

This is something that I, as an user, would like to have. It also seems to save some screen space when editing on a notebook that can do only 1024x768 too :-)

This is the annotated version I sent to the GIMP UI brainstorm blog. It doesn't add much more than what has been already wrote in this thread though:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8928/sdigimp.png

Luis Diego Alpizar Alpizar wrote:

I agree with this idea, but this would be implemented as a optional interface? We will be able to use both(Dockables or Non-dockables)? When i use Inkscape, i work very fast as their UI is very well done, with the colours palette down. But other users might find usefull the dockables

As for the dockable windows, with this UI they will still be there, but they would be only dockable to the right side of the screen, as the current left toolbar would become a simple, standard toolbar.

Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

This is something that I, as an user, would like to have. It also seems to save some screen space when editing on a notebook that can do only 1024x768 too :-)

This is a smaller version I made which shows that at 1024x768 (and possibly at even lower resolutions) there's still much usable screen space:

http://i29.tinypic.com/se3hg5.png

Martin Nordholts wrote:

I would just like to point out that the smallest screen size supported by GIMP is 1280x1024, so we don't need to make 1024x768 work or look good.

Yes, I've read that many times and I would agree with it too since anything lower than that resolution is rather old gear. I was experimenting (but what about 1440x900 screens though? This seems to be a common size for smaller monitors and some notebooks. The vertical resolution is the problem here).

I personally think that an interface which works well with lower resolutions while still maintaining good functionality and usable space is a good interface, by the way. It's useful for everybody to maximize screen space (*)!

(*) Possibly by avoiding wasting vertical space. Vertical resolution, except for high end or otherwise specialized monitors, seems to have stabilized to around 1050 pixels. Nowadays getting a bigger monitor with a higher resolution doesn't necessarily mean that there will be much more useful (and precious) vertical space.

Common resolutions for most consumer-grade LCD monitors are typically: 1280x1024 (5:4)
1440x1050 (4:3)
1680x1050 (16:10)
1980x1080 (16:9)

The current trend is that the following resolutions and higher ones will tend to be available only on high-end, professional grade monitors: 1600x1200 (4:3)
1980x1200 (16:10)

Alexia Death wrote:

Id have to agree with this one. I namely own a laptop with this resolution. I havent had any problems using gimp on it tho and I hope it stays that way.

Yes, by keeping two dockable areas (left and right side of the screen) as by default, a 1440x900 resolution enables to normally work with GIMP without any particular problem.

Finding myself desiring to use as much space as possible with my pen tablet and my screen, though, I've set up GIMP this way on my pc (only one dockable area, on the left), and lower vertical resolutions wouldn't work very well with this layout without losing a useful dockable window:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6244/mygimplayout.png

(note: this is a custom version of GIMP with two more tools, a blending brush, a pen tool with a stroke smoothing feature and other small things)

This layout is similar in many ways to what I proposed in this thread.