GIMP :: Scaling A Layer With Handles
Mar 7, 2013Is there a way to do this with "handles" and not in the Layer ->Scale command?
View 2 RepliesIs there a way to do this with "handles" and not in the Layer ->Scale command?
View 2 RepliesIs it possible to use the scaling handles (nubs?) on a layer when it is zoomed in?
I'm working on a technical drawing with several imported layers and fairly high resolution (600 dpi). All areas of each layer must precisely register with corresponding points on the other layers. However, as they were imported, there were several pixels difference between them. If I zoom out to the window, I see the scaling handles at the edges and can move any side or corner to rescale the layer, but the resolution is too low to see the image well enough to place it precisely. If I zoom in, I no longer can access the scaling handles.
I would like to zoom in to one corner of the image and align all the layers, then go to the opposite corner, zoom in, and adjust that corner into alignment without changing the first corner.
Is it possible to scale / resize a layer or selection about its center? I saw requests for this from 2010. This has to be possible.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI can't get the path tool to give me handles. I create a path with two points and when I grab the segment and drag it the anchors move with it. This used to work fine where the anchors would stay and the dotted lines and handles would pop out and I could manipulate the handles. I recently reloaded my system so has something changed? I'm using the latest stable Debian and it looks like Gimp 2.6 is loaded.
View 3 Replies View RelatedUsing a fresh stock installation of After Effects CS6, when I enable the 3D switch for a solid layer the directional handles will not appear, neither will the bounding box for the layer. Is there a preference setting that I'm missing, or is this just a "fluke" that will require me to re-install the software?
View 1 Replies View RelatedWhy should scaling a layer in photoshop CS6, have an effect on the size of the file?
View 17 Replies View RelatedDoes anyone know how (or if its possible) to scale a layer with layer effects (scaling the layer effects settings as well)?? My problem is I have a logo with multiple layer effects done to it. I now need to transfer that logo onto other sized documents. When I do that and try to scale it all of my settings do not scale with it. ie. a 5pt stroke effect on the logo stays at 5pt even though the logo is now huge! I can not rasterize the layer, I need to keep the sharpness for high end printing.
View 3 Replies View Relatedhow would I go about applying content aware scaling to a video layer inside PS? Basically I'm trying to use this feature to fake an aspect ratio change where by I have a subject surrounded by a relatively uniform background and I would like to be able to create a protection mask as an alpha layer and have photoshop apply the content aware scaling only to the background(to fill in the empty parts of the rescaled video) and leave the subject untouched.
What I've done is opened a video in photoshop as a layer, created an alpha channel to represent the subject(subject is white, background is black on the created alpha channel), changed the canvas size to the new aspect ratio which obviously created a tranparent frame around the original video frame. I then tried to apply content aware scaling to the video, it converted the layer to a smart object then displayed the free transform handles. However, when I selected my alpha channel as the protection area, the content aware scaling seemed to ignore it and went on to distort the entire frame. Now I tried this with still frame from the same video with the same mask/alpha channel and it worked as expected just didn't seem to do it with video.
The idea, if it would be possible to do this in PS, is to rotoscope the subject roughly in AE and generate a matte pass which can then be used as the accompanying alpha layer of the video so then the content aware scaling can be applied to each invidividual frame.
I have a design that is approx 9 inches by 11 inches @ 250 dpi. I would like to increase the print size for canvas to 16 x 20. My question is, after I create my new image for 16 x 20, if I scale up my picture (design) layer to 16x20, will that produce poor quality? Or am I just "stretching" the pixels?
View 1 Replies View RelatedWhat is interpolation when scaling images in Gimp? it is under quality. I see there are None, Linear, Cubic, & Sinc (Lanczos 3)... what are these and which one is the best one?? and does it matter which one e.g. are they all the same?
View 7 Replies View RelatedJust a question about scaling and pixelation. I've been doing some 3D models in ZBrush at a 960x960 size, and wanting to scale them down to 48x48 size, very small icons for a game engine.
Anyway I started doing this with just normal scale in GIMP, but the picture just turned out like a big blur. With further investigation I found GIMP add-ons, Liquid Scale and Step Scale (I think that was it's name) where you can step down the scale of the picture and sharpen it during step downs etc.
Still not having much luck, I can get it to look better, but not good, still very pixelated and blurry. The required result I want is something along these lines - Picture
Using high res picture, I've tried PNG, GIF, PSD with not really much luck.
PS: Attached is the original model GIF and the resized picture.
I have a 4608 x 3456 pixel photo, trying to resize to 960 x 190 pixels for the web. I tried cropping and and scaling the photo, but it is still coming out very blurry, and still not sized properly.
View 3 Replies View RelatedWhile Gimp is great, one of its biggest downfalls is the way in which it handles resizing and rotating images.
- Open a new image.
- Draw / manipulate / play with your image.
- Add layers, colors and images included.
Now, let's say you want to trace an image that's at the bottom of your layer stack. But that image is the wrong size, so you select the area you want to trace, drop its transparency down to 10%, and attempt to scale it to the size you've been sketching on the layer above it. The moment you attempt to scale / rotate it, it shoots back to 100% transparency, which is unintuitive because you can no longer see what's beneath the layer. In Photoshop, an area that is being scaled / rotated stays at the transparency you gave it.
Is there a way to make this NOT happen?
I've imported an image into gimp, I then have imported another image using File open as layers.
Once this second image is imported it's obviously far too large, I want it to easily sit within the first image.
However when I right click > image > scale image it alter's both of them at once. It does this whether I have both images showing or not.
When I shrink an image, the result seems to be distorted.
I have an image 850x850.
I go: Menu > Image > Scale Image > and set height and width to 306 px
I get the same error no matter what scaling algorithm I use.
See images below, the one scaled by the GIMP has the black circle noticeable shifted to the right hand side. The white gap between the red and the black circles is 6 px on the LHS and it is 3 px on the RHS (measured at the widest part of the circles) . To compare, I have also scaled the image using another image manipulation program (IrfanView) - it scales it properly.
scaled by the GIMP....
scaled by Irfanview...
Is there any setting that you think I may have set incorrectly to get this problem? (Under the View menu, I don't have any "snap to..." checked.)
The test source file is the scaleBug.xcf attachment.
I'm on GIMP 2.6.11, Windows 7 64bit.
When resizing a layer with a layer mask and using any bicubic method, the layer maks scales 1 pixel differently from the other layers. Is this normal due to some component of bicubic interpolation or is it a bug?
Try the following:
Create a new image in Photoshop at 800 px x 800 px
Leave the locked BG layer and create a new layer
Fill the new layer with green (or your favorite color)
Add a layer mask to the green layer and fill the mask with black (via Fill with foreground color or Alt+Del) to completely remove any visible green from your document
Now use Image-> Image Size (Opt+Cmd+I) to resize your document using any bicubic scaling method. Resize to 600 px by 600 px.
Now zoom in on the document's edge at the pixel level. Is it completely white as it should be?In my case, no. However, if I use 'nearest neighbor' interpolation method when scaling, I do get a solid white edge. Even more strange, if I fill the layer mask with black by inverting it rather than filling it the problem does not happen.
I am designing a logo, and have used a gimp script to create (a) the text that I need, and (b) a ring to enclose it. The ring is in a separate layer with a transparent background (I set the entire background to Alpha), and it surrounds the text. I created the ring using a script to transform a letter 'O' into a 'glassy' style object, which I then resized into an oval of the correct size and shape using the 'scale layer' tool.
The logo looks OK, but would be much improved if I could make the surrounding ring thinner. The ring has a 'glassy' effect which is just what I want, but it is a little on the chunky side. It would look much better if I could transform it to be about half the thickness that it currently is, to match the slimmer text inside the ring. I would like to do this without losing the 'glassy' effect of the ring.
I have already tried creating the ring with the thinnest font I could find that gave me the right shape, but this doesn't go quite far enough. Is there any way that I can thin the ring so that it keeps it's size, position and 'glassy' effect, but ends up with a thickness of about 50% of it's current width? Effectively, I just want to transform a fat ring into a skinny ring!
Ive figured out how to scale images and remove their backgrounds, but when I go to paste them in a new location I lose their scaling.
What I'm trying to do is put multiple pictures (the items are scaled to actual size, which is important) onto a single 8.5 x 11 page.
So, I've taken some of my pictures, opened their files scaled them to where they need to be, and then removed the backgrounds. I saved that as a new file.
How would I then take those files and place them, with the scale I made them, into something that is this 8.5 x 11 page size.
When I try to do it now, it doesn't keep the scale.
Right after one makes a selection, say by using the Rectangle SelectTool, is presented with handles that allow altering the selection.
If one then selects another tool without deselecting is being deprivedof these handles while the selection remains active thus rendering himunable to alter the selection in that fashion.
Thus forming my question: is there a way to make these handles to(re-)appear on a non-freshly created selection?
I'm searching a perfect source that can work for a scaling System which is best and recommended to match canvas size.
View 1 Replies View RelatedNew Responsive Scaling feature is great.
It's enabled me to add an Edge Animate file to my responsive Wordpress site using the Edge Suite Plugin.
Only problem for me is that although the 3.7MB file I’ve created scales perfectly on all devices it struggles to play on smartphones. (I assume it's too big and too power hungry to play smoothly on smartphones - even since I've added a pre-loader.)
So, in an ideal world, what I need is a separate low res Edge Animate file that only plays on smartphones.
Failing that, I’d be happy with a 'Down-level Stage' image which could replace the Edge Animate animation.
For a moment I thought I’d found a solution when I came across this Adobe TV movie: [URL]
Unfortunately this clever solution only works when the new Responsive Scaling feature is NOT selected. As soon as it is selected, the animation no longer changes from one layout size to another when the browser window is reduced.
I don’t mind whether the fix is in Edge Animate, Wordpress or the Edge Suite Plugin - I just want a solution!
I want to create a collage image with numerous large photos, each in it's own layer during editing. In order to fit, all the images need to be scaled down to varying degrees, but when I'm starting out, I'm not sure what scale each image will need to be. With the default, if I shrink them too much then they get pixellated when I try to enlarge them again. Is there a way of enabling gimp to scale each image, but drop this version and reuse the original data on future scale operations (ie a "lossless" scaling operation)?
Currently I'm having to essentially create the collage twice - first time various shrink and expands til all images fit together, then start again but just rescale once to the required size.
I presume I'm correct in thinking there's no record function in GIMP yet, so I can't record my actions to GIMP then just delete redundant steps and replay...
I have a GIF image that I need to add something to, but I don't want to add it to every single individual layer. Is there a way to add it over or behind the entire GIF so that it remains static while the GIF's frames cycle - like a watermark or something?
Or if not, is there maybe a script-fu that copies and merges a selected layer over every other individual layer automatically, without messing them up?
I know I'll probably have to just end up manually adding it to each layer, (so many layers...).
How do I make the edges of the top layer blend in with the bottom layer so you cannot tell that there is a line??? I want to make it look like a heart but I don't know how to smoothen the edges to make it look like it is part of the bottom layer so when I merge the layers there is no goofy lines looking like someone cropped another fire picture out...
fire3.xcf (Size: 489.68 KB / Downloads: 38)
I have two similar images where the subject has moved between the images. I have them in the same file as two separate layers and am using the subtract layer mode to identify where they differ, (roughly!).
I want to be able to use the subtract layer as a completely new layer so that I can make edits to it. The only way I have found to do this at the moment is to 'copy visible', but this still brings other elements that I don't want from where the layers overlap.
For the projects I'm working on, I use the same template beneath the different layer groups of each different project. When I move a "color" layer into the group, however, it doesn't show up like it's supposed to. It behaves as if the 'color' layer is a blank layer, and has no effect. Is there any way to get this to work or?...
ALSO: I can't open images by URL.
Why can't I align a single layer that is inside a layer group? The align tool would always select the top most layer group as the 'boundary' for alignment, thus automatically selecting the whole layers inside of it and align them as a group.
Is this a bug or just GIMP's weakness? It definitely reduces the layer group's usefulness.
Long time gimp user, but for basic tasks only. Now I would like to get my hands dirty a little more. I'm trying to setup a workflow that involves CAD, Inkscape and GIMP. Basically I did some architectural drawing in CAD, used Inkscape to clean up and convert DXG into SVG, so that I can use paths into GIMP. I did a script that for every path creates a new transparent layer with a layer mask using the path, so I can add fills and textures quickly. Now to the problem: say I want to add a texture from another image, i paste the image into the appropriate layer, then I want to transform the texture a bit (scale, rotate and perspective). the result is that the layer mask is transformed, too. I tried to disable the mask during transform, but didn't work.
Is there a way to workaround this? maybe some layer mode instead of layer mask?
I just downloaded GIMP 2.8 (on Windows 7) and was using the layer groups to organize a project I'm doing. I noticed that whenever I put the layers into the layer group, nothing I do to them actually affects the image (for example if I change the opacity of the layer, it doesn't actually change). If I drag them out of the layer group they function perfectly; sometimes if I edit them and then drag them into the group they also work fine.
As I was writing this post I tested dragging a layer set to "dodge" into the group and it didn't work. It kept the dodge setting, but it looked as if it was on normal; however, I drug another layer set on dodge into the group and it worked fine.
Is this feature just broken on Windows, or does it not work like I thought (where you can drag them in and edit them individually, or edit them all by editing the layer group itself)?
I have the latest gimp.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHow would you take a layer mask, and make it its own layer? If you try copying and pasting a layer mask, you can only dock it to another layer.
View 1 Replies View Related