RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

Histogram of selection?

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

12 of 13 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
Histogram of selection? Joseph Heled 08 Dec 22:59
  Histogram of selection? Carol Spears 09 Dec 02:31
   Histogram of selection? Laxminarayan Kamath 09 Dec 10:05
    Histogram of selection? Carol Spears 09 Dec 17:24
     Histogram of selection? Laxminarayan Kamath 10 Dec 08:17
  Histogram of selection? Sven Neumann 09 Dec 09:50
   Histogram of selection? Joseph Heled 10 Dec 02:27
Histogram of selection? William Skaggs 09 Dec 16:45
Histogram of selection? William Skaggs 09 Dec 16:54
  Histogram of selection? Sven Neumann 10 Dec 12:46
Histogram of selection? William Skaggs 11 Dec 00:20
200412081538.AA2560885076@p... 07 Oct 20:23
  Histogram of selection? Joseph Heled 09 Dec 00:47
Joseph Heled
2004-12-08 22:59:39 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

-Joseph

Joseph Heled
2004-12-09 00:47:25 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

William Skaggs wrote:

Joseph Heled wrote:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959

Feel free to add a comment to that bug report :-).

Best, -- Bill

That was opened more than a year ago. All the comments say it is easy. Nu it is not in 2.2 pre, so I guess no one was interested ...

-Joseph

Carol Spears
2004-12-09 02:31:35 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection and work the histogram bearing tools on this.

carol

Sven Neumann
2004-12-09 09:50:43 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

Hi,

Joseph Heled writes:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this?

Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report about it and basically we agreed that we want to change the behaviour. It should be an easy change but so far noone got around to do it. Perhaps you might want to give it a try?

Sven

Laxminarayan Kamath
2004-12-09 10:05:51 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection and work the histogram bearing tools on this.

carol

Unless u r working on a huuuuuge image.... like me and many of my freinds do.

William Skaggs
2004-12-09 16:45:43 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

Joseph Heled wrote:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

Carol wrote:

it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection and work the histogram bearing tools on this.

Doesn't work unless the selection is rectangular: all of the transparent pixels contribute to the histogram.

(The histogram in the Levels tool does take the selection into account, by the way, but it does not show statistics.)

Best, -- Bill


______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu

William Skaggs
2004-12-09 16:54:16 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

Joseph Heled writes:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this?

Sven writes:

Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report about it and basically we agreed that we want to change the behaviour. It should be an easy change but so far noone got around to do it. Perhaps you might want to give it a try?

The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report ( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is waiting for somebody to say that it is okay to do it. (Adding a "Use selection" checkbox would be almost as trivial.)

Best, -- Bill


______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu

Carol Spears
2004-12-09 17:24:59 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection and work the histogram bearing tools on this.

Unless u r working on a huuuuuge image.... like me and many of my freinds do.

at the point that you actually start to work on huge images, you might notice that a new layer is always always easier than working on a selection.

so many of the selection tricks were added to gimp so that the photoshopusers wouldnt notice the change over and because gimp can do them, however, anyone who has actually stressed their computer out with huuuuuge images will certainly be able to tell you that working on selections is the least efficient way to handle an image with gimp.

carol

Joseph Heled
2004-12-10 02:27:45 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Joseph Heled writes:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this?

Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report about it and basically we agreed that we want to change the behaviour. It should be an easy change but so far noone got around to do it. Perhaps you might want to give it a try?

If by the time I finish other stuff on higher priority it is still unresolved I will give it a try. Thanks for all the info on that.

-Joseph

Sven

Laxminarayan Kamath
2004-12-10 08:17:52 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:24:59 -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:

In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get the histogram for just the selection?

it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection and work the histogram bearing tools on this.

Unless u r working on a huuuuuge image.... like me and many of my freinds do.

at the point that you actually start to work on huge images, you might notice that a new layer is always always easier than working on a selection.

so many of the selection tricks were added to gimp so that the photoshopusers wouldnt notice the change over and because gimp can do them, however, anyone who has actually stressed their computer out with huuuuuge images will certainly be able to tell you that working on selections is the least efficient way to handle an image with gimp. carol

Yeah. i was saying from my frenz' point o view.. They aree photoshop addicts :(

Sven Neumann
2004-12-10 12:46:28 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

Hi,

"William Skaggs" writes:

The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report ( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is waiting for somebody to say that it is okay to do it.

IMO it is fine to always base the histogram on the selection.

(Adding a "Use selection" checkbox would be almost as trivial.)

That would be an option as well. Assuming that such a control fits reasonably well into the dialog. I wouldn't even object to see this change being sneaked into GIMP 2.2 still.

Sven

William Skaggs
2004-12-11 00:20:21 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Histogram of selection?

I wrote:

The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report ( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is waiting for somebody to say that it is okay to do it.

Sven wrote:

IMO it is fine to always base the histogram on the selection.

Okay, I have now implemented this in cvs head.

Best, -- Bill


______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu